UC-NRLF 


E7M 


tutes  of  a  Conference  between 
Labor  Committee  of  the 
Association  of  Railway  Executives 


and  the 


Associated  Standard  Recognized 
•oad  Labor  Organizations 


Held  at  2048  Transportation  Bldg.,  Chicago,  Illinois, 
Saturday,  June  5,  1920,  at  2  P.  M. 


Reprinted  by  the 

Association  of  Railway  Executives 
61   Broadway,  New  York  City 


Minutes  of  a  Conference  between 
the  Labor  Committee  of  the 
Association  of  Railway  Executives 

and  the 

Associated  Standard  Recognized 
Railroad  Labor  Organizations 


Held  at  2048  Transportation  Bldg.,  Chicago,  Illinois, 
Saturday,  June  5,  1920,  at  2  P.  M. 


C6 


The  committee  representing  the  Associated  Standard 
Recognized  Railroad  Labor  Organizations,  was  composed 
of: 

W.  S.  STONE,  Grand  Chief  Engineer,  Brother- 
hood of  Locomotive  Engineers. 

L.  E.  SHEPPARD,  President,  Order  of  Railroad 
Conductors. 

S.  E.  HEBERLING,  President,  Switchmen's 
Union  of  North  America. 

LOUIS  WEYAND,  Acting  International  Presi- 
dent, International  Brotherhood  of  Boil- 
ermakers, Iron  Shipbuilders  and  Helpers 
of  America. 

JAMES  BURNS,  Representing  Amalgamated 
Sheet  Metal  Workers'  International  Alli- 
ance. 

J.  P.  NOONAN,  International  President,  In- 
ternational Brotherhood  of  Electrical 
Workers. 

TIMOTHY  SHEA,  Assistant  President,  Brother- 
hood of  Locomotive  Firemen  and  Engine- 
men. 

W.  N.  DOAK,  Vice-President,  Brotherhood  of 
Railroad  Trainmen. 

J.  F.  ANDERSON,  International  Vice-President, 
International  Association  of  Machinists. 

J.  W.  KLINE,  General  President,  International 
Brotherhood  of  Blacksmiths,  Drop  For- 
gers and  Helpers. 

MARTIN  F.  RYAN,  General  President,  Brother- 
hood Railway  Carmen  of  America. 

E.  J.  MANION,  President,  Order  of  Railroad 

Telegraphers. 

F.  GRABLE,  Grand  President,  United  Brother- 

hood of  M.  of  W.  Employees  and  Rail- 
road Shop  Laborers. 

3 

*    .    t±%>^ 


E.  H.  FITZGERALD,  Acting  Grand  President, 
Brotherhood  of  Railway  and  Steamship 
Clerks,  Freight  Handlers,  Express  and 
Station  Employees. 

D.  W.  HOLT,  President,  Brotherhood  of  Rail- 

road Signalmen  of  America. 

TIMOTHY  HEALY,  President,  International 
Brotherhood  of  Stationary  Firemen  and 
Oilers. 

B.  M.  JEWELL,  President,  Railway  Employees' 

Department    American    Federation    of 
Labor. 

G.  W.  EASTTY,  Vice  Grand  President,  Brother- 
hood of  Railway  and  Steamship  Clerks. 

The  committee  of  the  Association  of  Railway  Execu 
tives  consisted  of  the  following: 

W.  W.  ATTERBURY,  Vice  President,  P.  R.  R. 
Co.  (Chairman). 

W.  G.  BESLER,  President,  C.  R.  R.  Co.  of  N.  J. 

C.  R.  GRAY,  President,  Union  Pacific  System. 
HALE  HOLDEN,  President,  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  R.  Co. 

J.  H.  HUSTIS,  President,  Boston  &  Maine 
R.  R.  Co. 

E.  E.    LOOMIS,    President,    Lehigh    Valley 
R.  R.  Co. 

N.  D.  MAKER,  President,  Norfolk  &  Western 

Ry.  Co. 
C.  H.  MARKHAM,  President,  Illinois  Central 

R.  R.  Co. 
J.  H.  YOUNG,  President,  Norfolk  Southern 

R.  R.  Co. 


ROBERT  S.  BINKERD,  Assistant  to  the  Chair- 
man, Association  of  Railway  Executives. 


The  meeting  was  called  to  order  by  General  W.  W.  At- 
terbury,  Vice-President  of  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  Com- 
pany, who  acted  as  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  Gentlemen :  In  order  to  complete  the 
file,  and  that  we  may  be  familiar  with  the  proceedings,  as 
well  as  the  preceding  history  of  this  question,  I  would  like 
to  ask  our  Secretary,  Mr.  Binkerd,  if  he  will  read  Mr.  Cuy- 
ler's  letter  addressed  to  Mr.  Jewell,  making  the  suggestion, 
and  then  have  him  read  Mr.  Jewell's  reply,  as  well  as  Mr. 
Cuyler's  answer  to  Mr.  Jewell,  so  that  this  will  all  then  be- 
come a  part  of  the  records. 

MR.  JEWELL  :  Might  it  not  be  a  good  idea,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, to  read  our  letter  to  Mr.  Cuyler  first? 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  Yes,  that  is  quite  proper,  Mr.  Jewell. 
We  will  proceed  that  way. 

(Whereupon  the  Secretary,  Mr.  Binkerd,  read  the  fol- 
lowing communication  from  Mr.  B.  M.  Jewell,  to  Mr.  T. 
DeWitt  Cuyler,  dated  April  5th,  1920:) 

Washington,  D.  C.,  April  5,  1920. 

MR.  T.  DEWITT  CUYLER,  Chairman, 

Association  of  Railway  Executives, 
61  Broadway, 

New  York,  N.  Y.    , 
Dear  Sir:— 

The  necessity  of  establishing  Boards  of  Adjustment  similar 
to  those  now  existing  to  handle  disputes  arising  between  the 
Carrier  and  Employees,  that  orderly  methods  may  be  pursued  in 
the  adjustment  thereof,  must  be  patent  to  both  the  Employer  and 
the  Employee. 

In  recognition  of  this  requirement  and  in  pursuance  of  the 
policy  of  the  United  States  Railroad  Administration  and  the 
principles  established  by  it  for  the  adjustment  of  Employees' 
grievances,  we,  the  Chief  Executives  of  the  Recognized  Standard 
Railroad  Labor  Organizations,  parties  to  the  existing  Boards  of 
Adjustment,  One  Two  and  Three,  proposed  to  the  representatives 
of  the  Association  of  Railway  Executives,  the  continuation  of  the 
present  practice,  i.  e.,  the  maintenance  of  the  three  Boards  of 
Adjustment  as  expressed  in  our  letter  of  March  24th,  1920,  copy 


attached.  The  reply  of  the  representatives  of  the  Association 
of  Railway  Executives,  under  date  of  March  30th,  setting  forth 
that  the  matter  had  been  referred  to  your  Committee,  is  also 
attached  hereto. 

We,  therefore,  desire  to  place  this  matter  properly  before 
you  at  this  time,  and  respectfully  direct  your  attention  to  the 
urgency  of  meeting  the  situation  promptly  if  we  are  to  hope  for 
a  continuation  of  peaceful  and  orderly  procedure  in  the  adjust- 
ment of  grievances. 

Kindly  favor  us  with  a  reply  at  your  earliest  convenience. 
Yours  truly, 

(Signed)     B.    M.   JEWELL, 
Chairman,  Railway  Employees'  Conference  Committee. 

(Following  which,  the  secretary  read  a  letter  from  Mr. 
Cuyler,  addressed  to  Mr.  Jewell,  dated  April  15th,  1920. 
to- wit : ) 

April    15,    1920. 
B.  M.  JEWELL,  Esq., 

Chairman,    Railway     Employees'     Conference     Committee, 
American  Federation  of  Labor, 

Washington,  D.  C. 
Dear  Sir: — 

Referring  to  your  letter  of  April  5th,  which  has  heretofore 
been  acknowledged,  relative  to  the  establishment  of  National 
Railroad  Boards  of  Adjustment,  I  beg  to  say  that  your  letter 
received  the  most  earnest  and  serious  consideration  on  the  part 
of  our  Association  at  its  meetings  held  in  Chicago  on  Friday, 
April  9th,  and  Saturday,  April  10th. 

Your  suggestion  is  for  the  establishment  of  National  Boards 
of  Adjustment,  similar  to  those  existing  under  Federal  control, 
to  handle  disputes  arising  between  the  carriers  and  employees, 
that  orderly  methods  may  be  pursued  in  the  adjustment  thereof. 
I  am  not  quite  sure  whether  you  have  in  mind  that  the  provisions 
of  Section  302  may  be  utilized  for  the  purpose  of  handling  dis- 
putes involving  wage  matters,  such  as  have  recently  caused  so 
much  inconvenience  to  the  public,  or  not.  Our  understanding  is 
that  this  Section  of  the  law  cannot  be  utilized  by  way  of  settle- 
ment of  wage  disputes  but  is  simply  a  provision  for  the  volun- 
tary getting  together  of  the  employers  and  employees  to  adjust 
any  controversies  which  may  arise  over  matters  not  involving 
wages.  The  law  provides  that  those  Boards  of  Labor  Adjust- 
ment "May  be  established  by  agreement  between  any  carrier, 
group  of  carriers,  or  the  carriers  as  a  whole,  and  any  employees 
or  subordinate  officials  of  carriers  or  organization  or  group  of  or- 
ganizations thereof." 

B 


This  simply  gives  several  methods  by  which  these  Boards 
may  voluntarily  be  created. 

It  is  further  provided  that  if  after  the  creation  of  such 
Boards  there  is  a  failure  to  agree,  an  appeal  may  be  taken, 
under  Section  307,  to  the  National  Railroad  Labor  Board,  upon 
which  the  public,  as  well  as  the  carrier  and  employee  is  repre- 
sented and  which  shall  be  a  final  court  of  appeal  on  all  questions, 
including  wages. 

The  plan  pursued  by  the  United  States  Railroad  Adminis- 
tration during  its  control  of  the  railroads  through  a  single 
National  Board  to  pass  upon  wage  questions  and  through  three 
other  National  Boards  to  pass  upon  all  other  questions  growing 
out  of  differences  between  the  different  groups  of  employees  and 
the  Railroad  Administration  was  probably  the  only  practical 
plan  that  could  be  followed  during  Government  control. 

Conditions  now,  however,  have  changed  and  a  policy  of 
de-centralization  has  been  adopted  not  only  by  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment, as  evidenced  by  the  passage  through  Congress  and 
approval  by  the  President  of  the  Transportation  Act,  but  by 
the  recommendation  of  the  Industrial  Conference  appointed  by 
the  President  that  "harmonious  relationship  between  employer 
and  employees  can  best  be  established  through  joint  action  in 
each  individual  plant/' 

The  return  of  the  roads  to  their  owners  would  seem  to  be  a 
fitting  time  to  inaugurate  this  de-centralization  policy  and  that 
the  interests  of  the  public,  as  well  as  the  employees  and  car- 
riers would  be  better  served  by  the  establishment  of  Adjustment 
Boards  on  each  individual  road  to  pass  upon  questions  involving 
the  relations  between  the  carriers  and  the  employees. 

The  Executives,  therefore,  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  wiser  course  would  be,  proceeding  under  Section  302,  to  agree 
with  the  employees  for  the  establishment  of  local  adjustment 
boards  on  each  road  as  the  occasion  required,  or  any  other  plan 
which  may  be  agreed  upon  for  bringing  the  two  parties  to- 
gether on  the  ground  or  at  the  point  of  inception  of  the  difficulty, 
in  order  that  as  many  as  possible  of  these  controversies  not  in- 
volving wage  increases  may  be  settled  between  the  parties  im- 
mediately at  interest  and  thus  avoid  burdening  the  National 
Labor  Board  unnecessarily  with  matters  which  might  be  ad- 
justed in  the  manner  indicated  between  the  parties  themselves. 

If,  however,  experience  of  this  method  should  indicate  that 
the  creation  under  the  law  of  other  agencies  is  desirable  and 
necessary,  the  way  is  of  course  still  open  by  consideration  of 
the  matter  for  the  adoption  of  any  other  course  or  plan  in  re- 
spect to  adjustment  agencies  that  may  seem  justified  by  the  con- 
ditions then  existing. 


We  trust  that  upon  consideration  you  and  your  associates 
will  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  decision  arrived  at  by  the 
Executives  will  inure  to  the  mutual  benefit  both  of  the  employees 
and  the  carriers. 

I  am, 

Very  truly, 
THOMAS  DEWITT  CUYLER, 

Chairman. 
*  *  * 

(Following  which,  the  secretary  read  a  letter  from 
Mr.  Jewell,  addressed  to  Mr.  Cuyler,  under  date  of  May 
10th,  1920,  as  follows:—) 

Washington,  D.  C.,  May  10,  1920. 
MR.  THOMAS  DEWITT  CUYLER, 

Chairman,  Association  of  Railway  Executives, 
61  Broadway, 

New  York  City. 
Dear  Sir: — 

Reference  to  your  letter  of  April  15th,  which  is  in  reply  to 
our  letter  of  April  5th,  relative  to  the  establishment  of  National 
Railroad  Boards  of  Adjustment,  please  be  advised  that  your 
letter  has  been  given  very  careful  consideration  by  the  Chief 
Executives  of  all  the  standard  recognized  railroad  labor  organi- 
zations in  meeting  held  May  5th.  The  following  is  their  unani- 
mous opinion. 

That  the  Associated  Standard  Recognized  Railroad  Labor  Organi- 
zations nonconcur  in  the  position  taken  by  the  Association  of  Railway 
Executives  in  the  matter  of  the  creation  of  National  Boards  of  Adjust- 
ment, as  stated  in  Mr.  Cuyler's  letter  of  April  15,  1920,  and  that  our 
Chairman  be  directed  to  arrange  for  a  conference  with  the  proper 
committee  authorised  to  represent  the  Association  of  Railway  Execu- 
tives. This  conference,  if  possible,  to  be  held  in  Chicago,  Illinois, 
during1  the  week  beginning  May  17,  1920,  and  to  be  attended  by  a 
committee  of  the  Chief  Executives  of  the  standard  recognized  railroad 
labor  organizations,  to  be  selected  by  the  Chairman.  Motion  unani- 
mously carried. 

Complying  with  the  above,  the  following  committee  was 
named : 

W.  S.  STONE,  Grand  Chief  Engineer,  Brother- 
hood of  Locomotive  Engineers. 
L.  E.  SHEPPARD,  President,  Order  of  Railroad 

Conductors. 

S.   E.  HEBERLING,    President,    Switchmen's 
Union  of  North  America. 

8 


Louis  WEYAND,  Acting  International  Presi- 
dent, International  Brotherhood  of 
Boilermakers,  Iron  Shipbuilders  and 
Helpers  of  America. 

JAMES  BURNS,  Representing  Amalgamated 
Sheet  Metal  Workers'  International 
Alliance. 

J.  P.  NOONAN,  International  President,  Inter- 
national Brotherhood  of  Electrical  Work- 
ers. 

W.  S.  CARTER,  President,  Brotherhood  of 
Locomotive  Firemen  and  Enginemen. 

W.  G.  LEE,  President,  Brotherhood  of  Rail- 
road Trainmen. 

WM.  H.  JOHNSTON,  International  President, 
International  Association  of  Machinists. 

J.  W.  KLINE,  General  President,  International 
Brotherhood  of  Blacksmiths,  Drop  For- 
gers and  Helpers. 

MARTIN  F.  RYAN,  General  President,  Brother- 
hood Railway  Carmen  of  America. 

E.  J.  MANION,  President,  Order  of  Railroad 

Telegraphers. 

F.  GRABLE,  Grand  President,  United  Brother- 

hood of  M.  of  W.  Employees  and  Railroad 

Shop  Laborers. 
E.  H.  FITZGERALD,  Acting  Grand  President, 

Brotherhood  of  Railway  and  Steamship 

Clerks,  Freight  Handlers,  Express  and 

Station  Employees. 

D.  W.  HOLT,  President,  Brotherhood  of  Rail- 
road Signalmen  of  America. 
TIMOTHY    HEALY,    President,    International 

Brotherhood  of  Stationary  Firemen  and 

Oilers. 
B.  M.  JEWELL,  President,  Railway  Employees' 

Department    American    Federation    of 

Labor. 


May  we  ask  that  you  arrange  for  the  selection  of  the  neces- 
sary committee,  so  that  conference  may  be  held,  if  possible,  in 
Chicago  during  the  week  mentioned,  and  that  you  advise  me 
the  names  of  your  committee,  as  well  as  the  place  and  the  hour 
where  meetings  will  be  held? 

The  extreme  importance  of  the  matter  warrants  a  thorough 
discussion  and  prompt  agreement,  and  it  is  hoped  that  you  will 
find  it  convenient  to  arrange  the  requested  conference. 

By  Order  of  the  Committee. 

(Signed)     B.  M.  JEWELL,  Chairman. 

Associated  Standard  Recognized 

Railroad    Labor    Organizations. 

*  *  * 

(Thereupon  the  Secretary  read  a  letter  from  Mr.  Guy- 
ler  to  Mr.  Jewell,  dated  May  19th,  1920,  as  follows :— ) 

May    19,    1920. 
B.  M.  JEWELL,  Esq., 

Chairman,  Associated  Standard  Recognized  Labor  Organiza- 
tions, 

Great  Northern  Hotel, 

Chicago,  111. 
Dear  Sir:— 

I  have  your  favor  of  the  10th  instant  advising  me  of  the 
action  taken  by  the  Associations  enumerated  in  your  letter  as 
to  the  action  taken  by  the  Association  of  Railway  Executives,  in 
reference  to  the  National  Labor  Boards  of  Adjustment  and  ask- 
ing that  a  further  conference  'be  held  between  the  Committee  you 
name  and  a  Committee  of  the  Executives. 

The  action  taken  by  the  Association  of  Railway  Executives 
was  at  a  meeting  of  all  the  member  roads  and  any  Committee 
now  appointed  would  not  be  empowered  to  alter  the  decision  ar- 
rived at  at  that  meeting  unless  so  authorized  by  another  meet- 
ing of  the  roads  duly  called  for  the  purpose.  We  of  course 
however  do  not  wish  to  stand  in  the  way  of  any  conference  you 
may  desire  to  have  with  us,  at  which  you  may  desire  to  lay  be- 
fore us  any  information  you  might  have  bearing  on  the  subject. 
I  am  therefore  asking  our  Labor  Committee,  which  consists  cf 
the  following  gentlemen : — General  W.  W.  Atterbury,  Vice-Presi- 
dent, Pennsylvania  Railroad,  Chairman ;  W.  G.  Besler,  President, 
Central  Railroad  of  New  Jersey;  H.  E.  Byram,  President,  Chi- 
cago, Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  R.  R.;  Carl  R.  Gray,  President, 
Union  Pacific  R.  R. ;  Hale  Holden,  President,  Chicago,  Burlington 
&  Quincy  R.  R.;  J.  H.  Hustis,  President,  Boston  &  Maine  R.  R.; 
E.  E.  Loomis.  President,  Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.;  N.  D.  Maher, 

10  ' 


President,  Norfolk  &  Western  Ry.;  C.  H.  Markham,  President, 
Illinois  Central  R.  R.;  W.  R.  Scott,  President,  Southern  Pacific 
Lines  in  Texas  &  Louisiana,  and  J.  H.  Young,  President,  Norfolk 
Southern  R.  R.,  to  communicate  with  you  through  its  Chairman 
and  arrange  for  a  meeting  at  such  time  and  place  as  may  be 
mutully  convenient. 
I  am, 

Very  truly, 

THOMAS  DEWITT  CUYLEB, 

Chairman. 
*          *          * 

THE  SECRETARY  :  Then  there  was  an  exchange  of  tele- 
grams between  Mr.  Jewell  and  General  Atterbury,  followed 
by  a  telegram  from  General  Atterbury  to  Mr.  Jewell  dated 
May  24th,  1920,  as  follows : 

May    24,    1920 
B.  M.  JEWELL,  Chairman, 

Associated   Standard   Recognized   Railroad   Labor   Organiza- 
tions, 
Room  1505  American  Bond  &  Mortgage  Bldg., 

Chicago,  111. 

Your  wire  23rd  instant.  Our  Labor  Committee  has  been  ad- 
vised by  Mr.  Cuyler  of  his  letter  to  you  of  19th  instant  and 
will  be  glad  to  arrange  for  meeting  with  your  committee  as  soon 
as  possible.  Will  try  to  consult  convenience  of  yourself  and 
associates  by  arranging  such  meeting  in  Chicago.  Regret,  how- 
ever, that  any  date  this  week  is  probably  impossible  because  of 
necessary  presence  of  so  many  executives  in  Washington  in  con- 
nection with  exercise  of  emergency  powers  of  Interstate  Com- 
merce Commission  and  the  inquiry  just  opening  on  necessary  in- 
creases in  rates.  Hope  to  be  able  to  offer  you  a  date  some  time 
next  week  and  will  advise  you  more  definitely  after  consulta- 
tion in  Washington  tomorrow. 

W.  W.  ATTERBURY, 

Chairman,  Labor  Committee. 

MR.  JEWELL  :  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  connection  with 
the  question  raised  by  Mr.  Cuyler  and  us,  as  to  what  mat- 
ters were  to  be  handled  by  these  Boards  of  Adjustment,  and 
particularly  whether  we  had  in  mind  that  they  were  to 
handle  matters  of  wage  increases,  I  would  say  that  it  was 
not  our  intention  or  desire  that  the  Boards  of  Adjustment 
would  handle  those  matters  in  any  different  manner  than 
they  are  now  being  handled  by  the  present  Board  of  Adjust- 

11 


ment  or  those  that  did  function  formerly  for  the  Railroad 
Administration.  We  understand,  of  course,  how  certain 
questions  must  come  before  the  present  Railroad  Board.  We 
want  these  National  Boards  of  Adjustment  continued  prac- 
tically in  the  same  manner  as  in  the  past,  I  mean,  as  they 
were  operated  under  the  Railroad  Administration,  and 
which  are  constituted  solely  for  the  purpose  of  making 
possible  a  condition  of  peace  and  a  settlement  of  differences 
which  cannot  be  settled  by  conferences  between  representa- 
tives of  the  railroads  and  the  representatives  of  the  em- 
ployees. 

Different  contracts  and  agreements  provide  for  con- 
ferences between  the  designated  or  duly  authorized  railroad 
officials  and  designated  or  duly  authorized  representatives  of 
the  employees  of  the  particular  roads.  What  we  have  in 
mind  is  that  after  these  parties  have  conferred  and  failed  to 
reach  an  agreement,  that  either  or  both,  may  have  the  right 
to  refer  the  case  to  this  Board  of  Adjustment,  who  will  deal 
with  the  dispute  under  the  agreement,  which  will  be  drawn 
up  between  them,  that  is  between  the  Association  of  Rail- 
way Executives  and  between  our  organizations. 

I  think  our  experiences  of  the  last  few  years,  under 
government  control,  justify  the  statement  that  these 
boards  will  make  for  greater  peace  in  railroads  and  will 
make  possible  the  settlement  in  a  peaceful  manner,  of  many 
differences  that  haven't  been  settled  in  the  past. 

In  connection  with  Mr.  Cuyler's  letter,  suggesting  your 
willingness  to  enter  into  an  agreement,  creating  System 
Boards  or  other  forms  of  Boards,  I  might  say  that  our 
Associated  Organizations  are  in  unanimous  opposition  to 
boards  of  that  character.  If  we  are  to  have  any  Boards  of 
Adjustment,  they  must  be  national  in  their  scope. 

We  are  extremely  interested  in  what  might  be  termed 
the  peaceful  operation  of  the  railroads,  and  the  establishing 
of  machinery  whereby  we  can  all  settle  our  differences  with- 
out interrupting  the  operations  of  the  railroads. 

The  results  secured  from  the  Railroad  Administration 
Boards  of  Adjustment,  speak  for  themselves,  in  the  per- 

12 


centage  of  decisions  that  have  been  handed  down  by  these 
Boards.  The  employees  have  not  received  the  majority  of 
decisions  in  their  favor.  We  are  not  seeking  this  conference 
or  asking  that  you  enter  into  the  creation  of  National  Boards 
of  Adjustment  from  the  viewpoint  that  we  have  received  a 
great  majority  of  the  decisions,  or  benefits  therefrom.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  the  greater  proportion  of  the  decisions 
have  been  adverse  to  the  employees.  We  are  seeking  these 
Boards  of  Adjustment  in  the  hope,  as  I  said  before,  that  we 
can  make  possible  a  continued  operation  of  railroads  with- 
out interference  from  strikes,  made  necessary  because  of 
our  inability  to  secure  a  settlement  of  disputes,  which  might 
be  termed  of  minor  importance. 

We  all  know,  or  feel  at  least,  that  the  Labor 
Board,  created  by  the  Transportation  Act  of  1920,  cannot 
be  expected  to  settle  or  to  deal  with  the  many  disputes  that 
must  come  before  some  tribunal  of  this  character  and  in  the 
absence  of  the  creation  of  the  National  Boards  of  Adjust- 
ment as  we  request.  We  are  satisfied  that  it  cannot  meet 
the  situation,  and  when  it  takes  more  than  a  reasonable 
time  to  settle  those  disputes  through  that  avenue,  we  have 
but  one  choice  left,  and  that  is  to  answer  the  demand  of  our 
men  and  try  to  get  their  differences  settled  on  the  particular 
roads  where  the  action  arises;  failing,  to  then  authorize 
strikes  in  compliance  with  our  laws.  That  is  what  we  want 
to  avoid,  if  we  can.  Do  you  want  to  add  something,  Mr. 
Sheppard? 

MR.  SHEPPARD:  I  look  upon  these  National  Boards, 
gentlemen,  as  a  modern  method  of  settling  large  questions, 
or  questions  which  grow  to  be  large  at  times,  when,  perhaps, 
they  ought  not  to  be  so  considered.  So  far  as  criticism  of 
the  boards  which  have  been  in  existence,  is  concerned,  I 
think  it  comes  from  both  sides.  I  think  it  was  the  lamented 
Lincoln  who  said  to  a  gentleman,  when  he  sent  him  some- 
where, "If  the  complaint  all  comes  from  one  side  and  the 
praise  all  comes  from  another,  I  think  you  are  not  doing 
your  duty;  but  if  you  can  get  both  sides  to  complain,  I 
think  you  are  in  control  of  the  situation."  It  seems  to  me 
that  is  what  has  been  done  with  these  boards.  I  know  we 

13 


have  taken  the  position,  speaking  for  the  Order  of  Rail- 
way Conductors,  and  I  think  my  colleagues  in  the  Trans- 
portation group  have  all  taken  the  position,  that  when  our 
members  have  complained  about  the  decision  which  has 
been  rendered,  that  they  must  accept  it  in  good  faith  and 
that  those  boards  should  be  the  court  of  last  resort  and  that 
we  expected  the  railroad  companies  to  abide  just  as  faith- 
fully by  decisions  rendered  against  them,  and  we,  of  course, 
to  be  consistent,  would  have  to  do  likewise,  and  in  that  way, 
many,  many  things  have  been  disposed  of.  Moreover,  I  do 
not  know  just  the  number  of  cases  which  have  been  handled 
by  the  Boards  representing  the  Transportation  group,  but 
there  were  several  hundred,  and  matters  which  had  been  in 
dispute  for  as  much  as  two  or  three  years,  have  been 
cleaned  up. 

Another  thing:  The  good  feeling  which  ought  to  exist 
at  all  times  between  railroad  officials  and  committees  or 
representatives  of  the  men,  it  seems  to  me  was  augmented 
to  a  great  extent.  The  personal  equation  was  eliminated  as 
to  differences.  The  railroad  officers,  if  you  please,  were 
looked  upon  as  tyrants  and  the  railroad  representative  was 
looked  upon  as  an  agitator.  However,  a  feeling  was  gradu- 
ally being  built  up,  as  we  see  it,  that  was  beneficial  for  all 
concerned.  It  kept  the  extremist  on  either  side  in  the  back- 
ground and  he  was  not  able  to  accomplish  his  purpose.  If  it 
happened  on  the  labor  side,  the  man  who  took  a  radical  posi- 
tion, was  overwhelmed  by  the  judicial  tribunal,  and  the 
same  thing  applies,  of  course,  to  the  employer's  representa- 
tive, who  wanted  an  undue  advantage. 

We  believe  that  this  is  the  best  method;  and  in  these 
days  of  big  business,  where  the  personal  equation  is 
thought  desirable,  we  would  not  minimize  that  in  the  least 
degree,  because  all  the  machinery  is  provided  to  recognize 
the  personal  equation  before  it  gets  out  of  the  hands  of  the 
officer. 

Our  law  requires  us  to  come  before  the  officers,  the 
same  as  before,  and  it  is  our  purpose  and  understanding  to 
continue  to  do  that.  If  any  gentleman,  representing  the 

14 


railroad  president,  for  example,  wants  his  men  to  come  to 
him  before  they  go  to  this  Board,  all  they  have  to  do  is  to 
say  through  whatever  avenues  the  railroad  presidents 
may  deem  necessary  or  advisable  that  their  men  shall  fol- 
low, before  going  to  the  outside  Board,  if  you  please,  will  be 
followed.  There  is  no  desire  to  take  a  short-cut  at  all,  nor  is 
there  any  desire  to  take  it  out  of  the  hands  of  railroad  of- 
ficers. In  my  experience,  I  frequently  appealed  to  the  rail- 
road president,  where,  oftentimes  it  was  not  feasible  to  go 
to  the  manager,  being  bound  down  by  limitations  and  I 
therefore  went  to  the  president  who  was  in  a  position  to  do 
more  than  the  manager.  In  that  way,  the  personal  equa- 
tion was  augmented.  It  is  very  desirable. 

The  reference  in  Mr.  Cuyler's  letter  to  the  action  of  the 
President's  Second  Industrial  Conference,  I  think  was  di- 
rected more  extensively  to  the  average  trade  than  to  rail- 
road men,  because,  insofar  at  least  as  transportation  or- 
ganizations are  concerned,  for  many  years  they  have  not 
been  denied  the  right  of  collective  bargaining.  The  personal 
equation  has  been  in  evidence  to  a  great  degree.  I  appeared 
before  that  committee  and  they  asked  me  several  questions, 
i  was  not  surprised  to  see  their  reports,  because  I  could 
see  their  trend  of  mind  by  the  questions  they  asked  me.  And 
as  I  take  it,  it  was  not  that  where  the  courts  are  already 
provided,  where  the  agency  was  already  working  satisfac- 
torily that  they  wanted  to  bring  out  the  so-called  shop  coun- 
cil, but  in  the  absence  of  anything  at  all,  that  they  wanted 
to  advocate  the  shop  council.  It  is  quite  true  that  they  did 
not  go  on  record  advocating  a  closed  shop.  They  seemed 
to  keep  away  from  that,  but  as  far  as  I  am  aware,  there  is 
no  closed  shop  idea  in  this  proposition  at  all.  As  most  of 
you  gentlemen, — I  think  all  of  you,  are  aware,  we  claim 
to  legislate  for  the  entire  class, — non-union  employee  as 
well  as  the  union  employee,  and  the  non-union  employee 
has  the  same  representation  before  the  board  as  a  member 
of  these  organizations.  I  might  say  along  this  line,  that 
the  Order  of  Railroad  Conductors,  in  their  convention, 
made  a  specific  provision  in  its  law,  that  any  conductor, 
belonging  to  any  organization  or  not,  could  have  his  griev- 

15 


ance  handled,  without  regard  to  any  affiliations  whatsoever, 
and  we  handled  one  or  two  before  the  United  States  Rail- 
road Administration,  of  men  who  had  no  court  to  go  to; 
but  inasmuch  as  we  had  what  might  be  called  a  contract 
for  the  line,  they  came  to  us  just  as  though  they  were  mem- 
bers of  the  organization,  and  received  full  consideration. 
As  my  memory  serves  me,  they  appealed  to  one  of  these 
Boards, — the  individual  did, — and  the  Board  upheld  the  ac- 
tion of  the  organization.  We  trust,  gentlemen,  if  there  is 
a  sentiment  here  of  prejudice,  you  will  lay  it  aside;  we  do 
not  assume  that  there  is  any  prejudice.  We  take  it  that  you 
are  interested,  just  the  same  as  we  are,  in  the  peaceful  oper- 
ation of  these  railroads.  You  have  large  and  varied  in- 
terests, and  you,  yourselves,  cannot  get  in  personal  touch 
with  all  your  employees.  The  average  president  or  vice- 
president  of  a  railroad  cannot  do  that,  and  if  we  think  tho 
personal  equation  will  be  overcome  by  the  action  of  the  rep- 
resentatives of  labor,  I  feel  that  that  is  a  very  small  factor, 
or  ought  to  be  in  this  case,  because  any  man  who  attempts 
to  set  an  employee  against  his  employer,  is  going  to  fall 
eventually,  by  the  action  of  those  very  men.  Th?  success 
of  a  man  in  such  a  work  as  we  are  engaged  in,  or  that  of  a 
labor  representative,  lies  in  his  ability  to  lead  correctly  and 
in  giving  proper  advice  and  not  in  building  up  strife.  Al- 
though there  are  times  when  it  may  appear  that  we  are 
doing  that,  and  indeed,  there  are  times  when  an  individual 
may  do  that,  but  no  wise  labor  leader  will  do  that;  but  on 
the  contrary,  he  will  invariably  tell  the  men  he  represents, 
by  all  means,  settle  your  difficulties  with  your  employer  if 
you  can.  Oftentimes,  we  find  in  our  own  ranks,  perhaps,  a 
man  who  thinks  that  it  is  his  born  duty  to  stir  up  strife, 
and  attempt  to  make  it  apparent  that  he  is  so  useful  that 
he  cannot  be  dispensed  with,  but  the  men  are  wise  in  this 
day  and  generation,  and  those  kind  of  people  in  these  rail- 
road brotherhoods  cannot  get  very  far.  We  sincerely  trust 
that  you  will  acquiesce  in  our  desires  in  this  matter,  for  we 
firmly  believe  that  everybody  will  be  mutually  benefited. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Jewell,  may  I  ask  Mr.  Shep- 
pard  a  question,  merely  to  clear  up  something  that  Mr. 
Sheppard  has  said,  because  I  don't  want  to  leave  the  record 

16 


doubtful.  I  judged  from  what  Mr.  Sheppard  said,  that  he 
neither  insisted  on  nor  recommended  the  closed  shop.  Do 
I  understand  that  he  speaks  for  all  of  you  gentlemen  in  that 
respect? 

MR.  JEWELL  :    Yes.    In  that  respect,  so  far  as  I  know. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  Let  me  say,  Mr.  Jewell,  if  you  pre- 
fer not  to  have  that  question  asked,  I  shall  be  quite  willing 
to  have  it  withdrawn,  but  I  don't  want  to  leave  it  in  such 
shape  that  there  could  be  a  misunderstanding  on  our  part, 
of  what  Mr.  Sheppard  said  in  this  connection. 

MR.  JEWELL:  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  make  the 
statement  (and  I  will  ask  the  other  gentlemen  present  to 
indicate  by  objecting,  if  I  do  not  state  it  correctly)  our 
position  in  this  matter.  Our  position  has  been  for  years 
that  we  speak  for  and  represent  all  of  the  class  of  employ- 
ees ;  regardless  of  membership  or  non-membership  in  these 
organizations,  who  perform  the  work  specified  in  our  agree- 
ments regardless  of  where  employed  on  the  railroads. 

MR.  SHEA:  May  I  say  a  word?  In  that  connection,  i 
assume,  in  asking  that  question,  in  speaking  for  the  rail- 
roads, that  the  railroads  on  their  part,  will  not  discriminate 
against  any  employee  because  of  his  membership  in  any 
employees'  organization. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I  asked  the  question  of  Mr.  Shep- 
pard, because  I  did  not  want  to  leave  his  testimony,  or  his 
statement,  rather,  in  such  shape  that  it  might  be  misunder- 
stood by  the  Railroad  Executives  when  we  report  to  them 
the  result  of  this  interview.  Now,  I  am  not  clear,  Mr. 
Jewell,  just  exactly  what  your  attitude  is? 

MR.  JEWELL  :  Let  me  try  to  make  it  clear,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. As  you  use  the  term  "closed  shop,"  we  don't  under- 
stand it.  I  might  say  frankly,  as  we  use  the  term,  it  is  a 
shop  that  is  closed  so  that  no  union  man  can  work  in  it. 
We  understand  what  you  are  indicating  or  suggesting,  has 
reference  to  either  a  union  or  non-union  shop. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  I  would  like  to  have  Mr.  Sheppard's 
interpretation  of  the  use  of  the  term,  because  Mr.  Shep- 

17 


pard's  organization  has  never  been  a  closed  shop  organiza- 
tion, as  we  understand  the  term  "closed  shop"  organization, 
and  his  idea  of  a  closed  shop,  and  our  idea  of  a  closed  shop,  I 
suspect,  might  be  rather  on  more  common  ground. 

MR.  SHEPPARD:  None  of  the  transportation  brother- 
hoods, I  think,  took  the  positions  of  the  conductors.  I  am 
not  well  versed  on  that  particular  feature,  so  far  as  the 
other  organizations  are  concerned,  but  I  understand  Mr. 
Jewell's  position  to  be  exactly  as  I  stated. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  that  is  perfectly  clear,  then  my 
question  is  answered. 

MR.  JEWELL:  I  don't  think  there  is  any  difference  in 
our  position  and  between  that  of  any  other  transportation 
organization.  We  do  not,  by  agreement,  propose  to  make  a 
shop,  union  or  non-union,  or  as  you  term  it,  closed  or  open ; 
we  propose  to  deal  with  that  in  our  organization.  We 
rather  prefer  to  have  our  men  come  to  us  of  their  own 
volition,  or  by  persuasion  rather  than  by  the  agreements. 

MR.  SHEA:  I  think,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  one  of  the 
fundamental  reasons  as  advanced  by  the  different  trade 
unions  of  the  countiy  for  so-called  closed  shop,  is  because 
there  has  been  a  tendency  in  the  past  on  the  part  of  some 
employers  to  prevent  organizations  of  labor,  or  to  discrim- 
inate against  employees  because  of  their  membership  in  a 
labor  organization.  I  think,  with  that  feature  eliminated, 
it  will  clear  up  a  great  deal  of  the  controversy  so  far  as  the 
question  of  the  so-called  closed  shop  is  concerned. 

MR.  JEWELL  :  That  has  always  been  my  version  of  it. 
If  the  railroads  would  take  the  same  neutral  position  as  the 
employees,  there  would  be  a  gradual  lessening  of  the  agita- 
tion for  so-called  closed  shops  by  memberships  of  organiza- 
tions. 

MR.  YOUNG:  You  take  the  position  that  there  should 
be  no  discrimination  in  the  employment  of  employees? 

MR.  JEWELL  :  In  the  employment  or  treating  with,  or 
treatment  of;  does  that  answer  your  question,  Mr.  Chair- 
man? 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :    I  think  that  answers  the  question. 

18 


MR.  SHEPPARD:  I  am  not  well  versed  in  the  so-called 
closed  shop  theory,  but  it  is  not  applicable  on  railroads  at 
all,  as  I  understand  it,  as  it  is  in  other  industries.  Advo- 
cates of  the  closed  shop  want  it  so  that  the  employer  need 
not  pay  the  two  classes  of  men  the  same  wages,  but  that 
does  not  come  up  in  railroads.  We  have  an  agreement 
whereby  we  are  paid  so  much  for  certain  classes  of  labor, 
therefore  the  difficulty  does  not  come  up  in  railroad  or- 
ganizations, as  I  understand  it. 

MR.  JEWELL:  What  are  we  to  understand  from  Mr. 
Cuyler's  letter?  In  the  absence  of  a  statement  from  you,  I 
must  ask  the  question,  what  authority  has  your  Committee 
in  connection  with  the  matter  being  taken  up  at  this  con- 
ference ? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Our  Committee  has  no  authority 
whatever.  We  must  report  back  to  the  Association  of  Ex- 
ecutives, who  have  to  determine  this  question. 

MR.  JEWELL:    At  a  meeting  to  be  held  later? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Just  as  soon  as  we  can  report  bacs 
to  the  Association  of  Executives. 

MR.  JEWELL:    Have  you  arranged  for  a  meeting? 
THE  CHAIRMAN  :    Not  at  all. 

MR.  JEWELL:  Our  request  to  you  is  that  the  gentle- 
men of  your  Committee  ask  any  questions  you  desire  to  ask 
and  we  will  be  glad  to  answer,  and  at  the  conclusion  of  this 
conference,  or  the  conferences  that  are  to  be  held  in  con- 
nection with  this  matter,  that  your  Committee,  in  your 
recommendation  to  the  Executives'  Committee,  advocate 
the  creation  of  these  National  Boards  of  Adjustment  by 
agreement;  then  when  that  matter  is  settled,  if  they  have 
agreed  with  our  thought  and  we  hope  that  will  be  your 
recommendation,  then  we  will  be  glad  to  arrange  for  the 
appointment  of  a  committee,  which  would  prepare  the 
agreement  for  the  creation  of  the  Boards  or  we  are  pre- 
pared now  to  try  to  work  out  something  which  could  be 
used  as  part  of  your  report  to  the  Association.  The  provi- 
sions of  the  agreement  to  deal  with  all  the  necessary  f unc- 

19 


tions  of  the  boards  prescribe  the  terms  under  which  they 
would  function  and  the  terms  under  which  matters  could 
be  submitted  to  them.  In  other  words,  along  the  lines  of 
General  Orders  13,  29  and  53,  something  of  that  scope,  but 
not  necessarily  in  that  language.  We  are  not  tied  at  this 
time,  as  far  as  I  know,  to  any  specific  provisions  or  agree- 
ments. The  principle  is  what  we  are  discussing,  the  agree- 
ment can  be  decided  on,  and  the  question  to  be  determined, 
is  the  creation  by  agreement  of  National  Boards  of  Adjust- 
ment. The  agreement  itself,  is  a  matter  of  detail  which  we 
ought  to  be  able  to  work  out,  and  we  want,  at  the  time  we 
work  it  out,  to  benefit  by  the  best  thought  of  everyone  we 
can  get.  We  want  the  machinery  established  so  that  it 
will  be  workable,  practical  and  satisfactory. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  Mr.  Young,  do  you  desire  to  ask  any 
questions  of  Mr.  Jewell  ? 

MR.  YOUNG:  I  have  nothing  to  ask.  Mr.  Sheppard 
and  Mr.  Jewell  said  everything  that  was  in  my  mind.  The 
formation  of  other  committees  on  railroads,  which  I  under- 
stand you  don't  object  to,  that  is  local  committees  to  settle 
local  difficulties. 

MR.  SHEPPARD:    Our  machinery  provides  for  that. 

MR.  JEWELL:  We  have  that  already,  local  committees 
where  conferences  can  be  held. 

MR.  YOUNG:  Would  you  be  willing  to  work  out  an 
agreement  as  to  the  kind  or  class  of  cases  which  come  to 
the  board,  and  the  manner  in  which  they  should  be  handled  ? 

MR.  JEWELL:  Yes,  that  should  be  done;  necessarily 
that  should  be  done. 

MR.  SHEPPARD  :  On  the  general  basis  of  Order  Num- 
ber 13. 

MR.  HOLDEN:  Mr.  Sheppard,  may  I  ask  a  question? 
I  am  not  familiar  with  just  what  Order  13  is  in  that  par- 
ticular, but  I  wanted  to  ask  this  question,  whether  it  is  in 
your  minds  to  form  a  National  Board  with  practically 
the  same  measure  of  jurisdiction  as  the  National  Board  of 
Adjustment?  In  other  words,  to  come  right  to  the  point, 

20 


there  was  a  feeling,  I  think  probably  on  both  sides,  some- 
what based  on  what  Mr.  Jewell  suggested,  that  a  great 
many  matters  of  obviously  minor  importance  went  to  the 
National  Board.  The  inquiry,  I  think,  is  pertinent,  whether 
it  is  in  your  minds,  and  whether  it  is  practical  in  consider- 
ing your  suggestion,  if  there  should  not  be  some  reasonable 
limitations  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  National  Board 
whereby  it  would  hear  matters  of  large  importance  rather 
than  those  of  minor  significance;  whether  that  could  be 
worked  out  in  some  way? 

MR.  SHEPPARD:  I  think  so,  Mr.  Holden.  Men  are 
prone  to  shirk  their  responsibilities.  That  failing  is  not  all 
confined  to  any  class  of  men.  We  find  officers  of  railroads, 
and  we  find  representatives  of  labor  who  ought  to  have  got- 
ten together,  but  they  preferred  to  pass  it  to  the  Board. 
Now,  we  had  occasion  to  remonstrate  with  our  representa- 
tive, and  to  make  an  open  confession,  perhaps  the  execu- 
tives,— I  am  speaking  of  the  transportation  brotherhood 
especially,  more  than  others, — perhaps  we  did  not  give  it 
as  close  scrutiny  as  we  should,  not  because  we  did  not 
want  to,  but  because  we  were  over-burdened  with  other 
things.  1  am  not  betraying  secrets,  but  you  should  know 
that  three  of  the  transportation  brotherhoods  have  their 
headquarters  in  Cleveland,  and  I  have  an  understanding 
with  Mr.  Shea,  Mr.  Stone  and  Mr.  Lee  that  if  we  get  Na 
tional  Boards,  I  will  place  a  vice-president  at  Cleveland, 
and  they  will  place  a  vice-president  at  Cleveland,  as  a  sort 
of  clearing  house  to  act  upon  matters  before  they  go  to  the 
Board,  and  in  that  way,  we  will  eliminate  a  lot  of  things 
that  perhaps  ought  not  to  be  presented  to  the  Board,  I 
mean,  a  lot  of  trifling  things.  If  we  see  that  the  railroad 
managers,  from  our  point  of  view,  are  not  meeting  the  is- 
sue or  taking  the  same  degree  of  responsibility  that  we 
were,  I  think  it  would  be  our  duty  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
president,  if  need  be,  of  that  railroad,  to  the  fact  that  a  great 
many  cases  seem  to  come  from  his  road, — and  we  expect 
you  gentlemen  to  do  likewise  if  our  representatives  do  not 
have  the  moral  courage  to  do  some  of  the  things  they  ought 
to  do.  And  we  would  be  glad  to  know  it. 

21 


We  were  just  really  getting  started  along  that  line 
when  private  control  came  back.  The  question  had  already 
arisen.  I  know  that  we  had  spoken  to  or  written  this  presi- 
dent or  that  president  of  the  railroad,  calling  his  attention 
to  the  shortcomings,  as  we  thought,  of  his  officers,  and  they 
had  written  us  about  things  they  thought  we  ought  to  be 
looking  after,  and  I  appreciate  very  fully  that  there  is  work 
for  executives  on  both  sides  to  do,  but  if  we  all  go  into  this 
work  with  a  determination  to  make  a  business  proposition 
of  it,  to  give  and  take  wherever  is  necessary  and  make  our 
subordinates  do  likewise,  we  will  avoid  many  criticisms  and 
eliminate  many  of  the  objections  to  National  Boards,  in  my 
judgment. 

MR.  HOLDEN  :  I  think  you  have  in  mind  the  situation 
which  I  also  have  in  mind.  As  one  of  the  Regional  Direc- 
tors during  the  period  under  which  the  roads  were  under 
Federal  Control,  I  came  in  contact  quite  a  good  deal  with 
this  situation :  Where  the  local  individual  who  had  a  griev- 
ance, knowing  that  he  had  an  appeal  to  the  Board  in  Wash- 
ington, in  many  cases  the  situation  developed  where  it  be- 
came impossible,  or  at  least  very  difficult  for  the  local  of- 
ficer to  bring  about  a  negotiation  locally  of  that  particular 
grievance.  I  assume  that  the  opposite  is  true,  as  you  have 
suggested,  that  there  were  many  cases,  doubtless,  where 
the  local  officers, — in  some  cases  where  they  knew  that  the 
complainant  proposed  to  make  his  appeal,  and  was  con- 
scious that  he  had  an  appeal  to  Washington, — the  local  offi- 
cers would  perhaps  be  indifferent  and  not  as  active  as  they 
should  have  been  to  bring  about  local  settlements.  There 
is  no  doubt  that  feeling  existed,  and  it  worked  both  ways. 
From  what  you  say,  and  I  am  willing  to  say  from  what  I 
feel,  that  is  a  situation  that  ought  to  be  corrected,  if  pos- 
sible, so  that  as  far  as  possible  these  questions  should  be 
settled  locally.  In  other  words,  if  we  are  going  to  set  up  a 
National  Board  of  Adjustment  for  all  the  mileage  in  this 
country  and  every  minor  case  can  go  to  that  National 
Board,  we  haven't  progressed  very  far  in  getting  industrial 
peace,  which  both  sides  here  earnestly  want. 

Therefore  I  come  back  to  my  original  point,  whether 

22 


there  is  a  practical  way  to  consider  this  suggestion,  which 
would  limit  the  jurisdiction  of  the  National  Board  some- 
what akin  to  what  the  jurisdiction  of  the  upper  courts 
are  as  compared  with  those  of  inferior  jurisdiction.  For 
instance,  we  know  in  Justice  of  the  Peace  Courts  of  the 
country,  generally  speaking,  the  amount  involved  is  not 
generally  more  than  twenty  dollars,  and  you  cannot  appeal 
from  a  decision  of  those  courts  involving  that  small  sum, 
and  all  citizens  have  come  to  recognize  the  fact  that  their 
right  of  appeal  is  limited.  Not  necessarily  following  that 
exact  procedure,  but  by  the  same  analogy,  it  seems  to  me, 
if  we  reach  an  agreement  with  you  gentlemen,  we  both  want 
the  National  Board  to  be  a  success,  and  that  one  of  the 
essentials  to  that  success  would  be  to  limit  the  activity  of 
that  Board  to  the  real  things  instead  of  every  petty  little 
matter  that  might  be  brought  there  and  which  ought  never 
to  reach  that  board.  Whether  it  is  practical,  within  that 
line  of  thought,  to  define  the  jurisdiction  of  that  Board,  is 
a  matter  to  think  about.  What  I  wanted,  was  your  general 
attitude  on  the  subject. 

MR.  SHEPPARD:  Right  at  the  present  time,  Mr.  Hol- 
den,  I  have  a  communication  from  a  committee  of  a  large 
railroad,  complaining  because  a  certain  conductor  was  not 
reinstated  by  Board  Number  One.  I  have  told  that  com- 
mittee that  they  are  absolutely  out  of  court.  On  the  same 
desk,  and  handed  me  at  the  same  time,  comes  a  protest  from 
a  general  manager  of  a  railroad  who  is  not  going  to  abide 
by  two  decisions  against  him, — not  from  the  same  railroad, 
but  another  road.  That  is  a  joint  matter  between  trainmen 
and  myself.  Mr.  Lee  and  myself  are  both  objecting  to  that 
gentleman  having  another  day  in  court.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Railway  Board  of  Adjustment  No.  1, —  I  speak  more 
advisedly  on  that  than  the  other,  because  I  served  six 
months  on  this  Board,  where  all  our  cases  go  to,  wherever  it 
is  shown  to  them  that  they  have  committed  an  error  and 
have  treated  anybody  unfairly,  open  the  case  of  their  own 
volition.  They  are  always  open  to  conviction.  But  in  the 
absence  of  that,  just  because  somebody  has  decided  with  a 
verdict  against  them,  they  should  have  another  day  in 
court,  and  Board  Number  One  has  been  very  quick,  al- 

23 


though  it  has  not  been  called  upon  to  do  it  very  often,  but 
to  my  knowledge,  three  or  four  cases  have  been  reversed 
by  themselves,  where  it  has  been  made  apparent  to  them 
that  they  were  not  in  possession  of  proper  information. 
Now,  all  those  difficulties,  if  we  all  work  together,  and  this 
idea  that  I  have  advanced,  so  far  as  the  transportation 
group  is  concerned,  v/ill  tend  to  minimize  our  misunder- 
standings to  a  great  extent. 

This  is  what  happened  under  the  old  order  of  affairs : 
Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  we  sent  out  our  decisions 
from  time  to  time,  getting  them  out  as  fast  as  we  could, 
we  found  the  same  case,  without  an  iota  of  change,  so  far  as 
the  facts  in  the  case  were  concerned,  coming  back  to  the 
board  to  be  decided  over  again.  Now,  both  the  railroad 
managers  and  the  general  committee  ought  to  be  bound  by 
the  previous  decisions  and  be  governed  thereby,  or  one  side 
or  the  other  ought  to  raise  the  issue  that  this  case  has  al- 
ready been  decided ;  but  some  general  manager  on  the  one 
hand,  or  some  shrewd  chairman,  or  some  fellows  who  think 
they  are  shrewd,  twist  the  thing,  or  put  their  construction 
on  it,  and  thereby  get  it  back  to  the  Board.  That  is  a  seri- 
ous matter  that  we  will  have  to  contend  with,  but  I  have 
no  doubt  it  will  work  itself  out.  We  are  making  progress, 
I  think. 

MR.  JEWELL:  I  believe,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  or- 
ganizations are  perfectly  agreeable  to  do  all  they  possibly 
can  in  complying  with  what  I  understand  to  be  Mr.  Hoi- 
den's  suggestion,  that  is,  of  wording  this  agreement  in  such 
a  way,  to  bring  before  the  Board  only  such  cases  as  the 
Board  ought  properly  to  handle.  We  are  perfectly  agree- 
able to  that  and  are  doing,  and  will  continue  to  do  a  great 
many  things  which  would  be  helpful  along  those  lines 
within  our  organizations.  It  must  be  remembered  that  this 
was  practically  a  new  innovation,  but  we  have  had  a  great 
deal  of  experience  in  dealing  with  adjustment  boards,  and 
have  benefited  by  it. 

The  Railway  Employees'  Department  has  arranged  to 
try  and  meet  the  situation  by  electing  one  additional  officer. 
The  prime  purpose  of  electing  that  man,  as  I  understand 

24 


it,  was  that  he  might  handle  and  might  devote  the  major 
portion  of  his  time,  just  to  handling  the  cases  that  will  go 
before  the  Board.  He  will  have  certain  restrictions  thrown 
around  him  with  reference  to  cases  that  he  can  submit,  and 
the  conditions  under  which  he  can  approve  their  submis- 
sion to  the  Board,  and  he  will  handle  the  work  for  the  or- 
ganization, and  he  is  placed  in  such  a  position  as  to  be  prac- 
tically free  from  all  influence  other  than  the  direction  which 
will  be  given  him  by  the  organizations  affiliated  with  the  de- 
partment. That  ought  to  be  helpful.  We  are  perfectly 
willing  and  agreeable  to  go  just  as  far  as  we  possibly  can  to 
eliminate  the  objectionable  results  which  have  grown  up 
and  come  to  our  notice  under  the  existing  Boards  of  Ad 
justment.  We  are  trying  to  work  out  an  understanding 
which  will  make  perfectly  practicable  and  possible  and  ac- 
ceptable, the  National  Boards  of  Adjustment. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  I  should  say  something  fur- 
ther in  connection  with  the  matter  of  National  Boards  of 
Adjustment,  along  the  lines  of  efforts  made  by  these  or- 
ganizations, towards  standardization.  I  think  all  of  us 
know  for  practically  the  entire  time  during  the  history  of 
these  railroad  labor  organizations,  a  consistent  effort  has 
been  made  towards  standardization  and  uniformity  of  con- 
ditions. We  have  made  some  considerable  progress  along 
that  line  up  to  the  present  time,  and  when  we  consider  the 
creation  of  System  Board  of  Adjustment,  or  any  other  forms 
of  adjustment  boards  other  than  National  Boards  of  Ad- 
justment, we  have  to  deal  with  just  one  question  as  we  see 
it,  which  has  a  very  great  element  of  danger,  that  consists 
in  securing  different  decisions  from  different  boards  in- 
volving practically  the  same  question,  or  the  application  of 
the  same  rule  on  different  railroads  with  different  results, 
and  the  very  moment, — we  must  all  agree, — the  very  mo- 
ment we  get  different  decisions  by  reason  of  different 
boards,  involving  the  same  question,  or  on  different  rail- 
roads, just  at  that  time  do  we  create  additional  unrest,  and 
we  make  for  a  condition  which  will  defeat  the  very  purpose 
we  have  in  view,  in  urging  the  organization  of  National 
Boards,  which  is  the  maintenance  of  industrial  peace. 

The  moment  one  road  gets  a  decision  or  one  division  or 
cne  region  gets  a  decision  from  a  board  which  is  more 

25 


iavorable  than  that  rendered  by  some  other  board,  just  at 
that  moment,  the  parties  that  have  received  a  less  favorable 
decision,  become  dissatisfied  and  immediately  demand  the 
more  favorable  decision. 

We  are  all  desirous  for  the  making  of  the  maintenance 
of  t)eace  on  these  railroads,  and  hope  to  do  that,  and  be- 
lieve that  we  can  do  that  by  the  creation  of  National  Boards 
of  Adjustment  with  proper  limitations  as  suggested,  clearly 
defining  the  functions  of  the  board,  and  we  are  prepared  to 
meet  you  gentlemen  and  try  to  work  out  the  things  when- 
ever we  find  you  with  authority  to  enter  into  that  question. 

MR.  BESLER:  My  understanding,  Mr.  Chairman,  of 
the  remarks  that  have  been  made,  all  tend  toward  the  en- 
forcement of  the  square  deal, — a  square  deal  for  the  men 
and  a  square  deal  for  the  company,  reciprocally,  so  that  one 
might  not  ask  that  which  he  would  not  be  willing  to  con- 
cede if  he  were  to  trade  places  with  the  other.  Under  such 
a  situation,  it  would  seem  to  me  that  very  few  individual 
cases  would  get  beyond  the  local  committee.  The  average 
individual  cases  of  discipline,  by  agreement,  should  and 
ought  to  be  settled  on  the  ground  and  on  its  merits,  on  the 
basis  of  the  square  deal,  which  means  fairness  to  both  sides. 

Therefore,  the  function  of  the  larger  Board  would 
relate  to  matters  of  fundamental  importance,  which  in- 
volve classes,  which  involve  groups,  beyond  the  mere  indi- 
vidual disagreement  or  dissatisfaction  with  that  which  may 
have  been  visited  upon  the  individual  in  his  particular  case. 
But  in  those  cases  where  a  group  or  class  might  not  agree 
with  the  company,  and  there  should  come  an  impasse,  then 
the  avenue  would  be  to  refer  the  matter  to  this  National 
Board  of  Adjustment.  This  applies  to  questions  upon  which 
the  local  management  or  local  class  or  local  group  might 
not  agree.  That  is,  as  I  understand,  about  what  you  have 
in  mind. 

MR.  JEWELL:  Yes,  generally  speaking,  that  is  what 
we  have  in  mind.  I  think  it  is  proper  to  say,  if  we  enter 
into  the  proper  spirit  in  the  creation  of  these  National 
Boards  of  Adjustment, — with  just  one  spirit,  and  that  is 
the  one  which  you  suggest,  and  which  I  will  express  in  these 
terms,  that  is,  a  real  desire  for  industrial  peace,  and  with 

26 


the  spirit  of  real  co-operation  as  between  the  employees  and 
their  representatives,  and  the  employers  or  the  manage- 
ment and  their  representatives,  we  can  and  should  settle  a 
vast  majority  of  the  cases  on  the  respective  railroads  by 
conferences  between  those  representatives.  Then,  neces- 
sarily, there  would  be  very  few  cases  of  that  kind  which 
would  come  to  this  National  Board. 

MR.  BESLER:  Then  get  a  good,  broad  local  chairman. 
a  man  fit  for  his  job,  who  would  look  broadly  upon  questions 
submitted  to  him  from  the  standpoint  of  fairness  to  both 
sides,  and  who  would  not  insist,  simply  because  he  was  rep- 
resenting a  man,  that  that  man's  cause  must  be  decided  in 
his  favor,  rather  than  because  of  the  justice  of  his  cause,  a 
man  who  would  not  be  inclined  unduly  to  merciful  treat- 
ment rather  than  what  is  justice  and  what  is  due, — I  think 
such  a  local  chairman  ought  to  be  able  to  decide  a  very 
large  number  of  cases  right  within  the  locality  where  the 
trouble  might  arise,  if  there  be  trouble. 

MR.  JEWELL:  Yes,  that  is  true  with  regard  to  both 
sides  of  our  house. 

MR.  BESLER  :    Yes,  I  intended  to  convey  that. 

MR.  JEWELL:  Yes,  with  that  understanding  we  can 
both  agree.  I  didn't  misunderstand  you,  did  I,  in  your  re- 
marks, that  you  favored  the  Board  merely  passing  upon  in- 
terpretations of  the  agreement,  rather  discipline  cases? 

MR.  BESLER  :    Do  you  mean  this  National  Board  ? 

MR.  JEWELL:    Yes. 

MR.  BESLER:  I  assume,  while  occasional  discipline 
cases  might  come  before  the  National  Board,  the  real  pur- 
pose of  the  creation  of  such  a  Board  is  for  larger  purposes, 
and  that  such  cases  should  not  be  taken  up  by  the  Board, 
and  it  should  not  be  asked  to  concern  itself  with  trivial  dis- 
cipline cases.  My  idea  is  that  it  should  concern  itself  more 
with  fundamentals,  and  minor  cases  ought  to  be  sent  to 
some  other  tribunal. 

MR.  JEWELL:  But  it  is  not  your  idea,  however,  that 
discipline  cases  would  not  be  entertained  by  the  Board? 

MR.  BESLER  :    I  had  not  gone  quite  that  far. 

27 


MR.  MANION:  I  noticed  in  Board  No.  1  there  were 
256  discipline  cases  handled  by  that  Board.  Out  of  that 
number,  131  decisions  were  unfavorable  to  the  employees, 
and  about  100  decisions  favorable.  Of  course,  with  that 
record  staring  us  in  the  face,  we  would  not  consistently 
care  to  take  all  discipline  cases  there,  but  there  are  prob- 
ably instances  where  discipline  cases  would  of  necessity 
have  to  go  there.  That  might  arise  by  reason  of  stubborn- 
ness on  the  part  of  railroad  officials,  or  stubbornness  on 
the  part  of  committees. 

It  has  been  my  experience  in  the  past,  when  I  acted  as 
Vice-President  of  the  Board,  and  came  in  direct  contact  with 
these  cases,  that  often  I  would  find  a  committee  had  gotten 
in  that  frame  of  mind,  and  after  I  reviewed  the  case,  and 
found  it  wrong,  I  did  not  hesitate  to  tell  them  so,  and  there 
are  probably  instances  of  that  character  as  far  as  the  rail- 
road officials  are  concerned.  It  would  be  our  aim,  at  least 
I  glean  from  what  these  gentlemen  have  said,  and  they 
have  expressed  my  own  view,  that  these  cases,  both  as  to 
interpretation  of  agreements,  and  discipline  cases,  should 
be  thoroughly  reviewed  by  the  officers  of  these  organiza- 
tions before  they  are  passed  on  to  the  Board.  I  believe  if 
we  had  an  understanding  of  that  character  and  both  sides 
made  an  honest  effort  to  pass  on  these  cases  prior  to  mak- 
ing disposition  of  them,  either  by  sending  them  to  the 
Board  or  disallowing  them,  I  believe  there  would  be  a  great 
many  of  our  difficulties  removed  without  going  further. 

MR.  BESLER:  I  think  Mr.  Sheppard  and  Mr.  Holden 
covered  fully  what  we  were  discussing. 

MR.  MANION:  I  was  greatly  interested  in  what  Mr. 
Holden  said,  although  Mr.  Holden  seemed  to  desire,  as  I 
gathered  it,  to  place  a  limitation  on  the  cases  that  should 
go  to  the  boards.  I  was  just  wondering  what  limitation  we 
could  pass,  and  it  was  suggested  to  rne,  from  his  remarks, 
that  perhaps  he  had  made  a  study  of  it,  and  I  am  sure  We 
would  like  to  hear  further  from  him  in  that  regard. 

MR.  HOLDEN  :  No,  Mr.  Manion,  I  haven't  made  a  study 
of  it,  but  if  you  will  permit  me,  I  would  like  to  say  a  word 
further.  The  fact  that  a  large  percentage  of  discipline 
rases  were  decided  against  the  contention  of  the  men,  is 

28 


significant  to  me,  in  this  particular,  because  it  indicates  that 
a  great  many  of  those  cases  ought  never  to  have  been  ap- 
pealed ;  at  least,  that  is  one  fair  deduction. 

Now,  with  regard  to  what  Mr.  Sheppard  said,  that 
they  had  just  fairly  gotten  started  when  Federal  control 
ceased.  In  the  method  of  reviewing,  within  your  own  or- 
ganization, cases  that  were  on  appeal  to  the  Board,  that  in- 
dicates one  method,  following  out  the  thought  of  a  clearing 
house,  if  you  like.  This  General  Order  No.  13  has  a  distinct 
limitation  on  appeals,  but  I  gathered  that  that  limitation 
hadn't  begun  to  be  in  operation  when  Federal  control  ter- 
minated. "The  Chairman  of  the  General  Committee  of  Em- 
ployees may  refer  the  matter  to  the  Chief  Executive  Of- 
ficer of  the  organization  concerned,  and  if  the  contention  of 
the  Employee's  Committee  is  approved  by  such  Executive 
Officer,  then  the  Chief  Operating  Officer  of  the  railroad  or 
Chief  Executive  Officer  of  the  organization  shall  refer  the 
matter  to  the  Director  of  Labor  and  he  shall  present  it  to 
the  proper  Board."  I  infer  from  what  Mr.  Sheppard  said 
that  if  the  active  administration,  if  that  had  been  available, 
that  it  was  their  purpose  to  require,  through  the  Chief 
Executive  Officer  of  the  particular  organization,  an  exami- 
nation of  the  individual  case,  which  was  not  agreed  on  be- 
low, by  the  railroad,  and  decide  in  the  office  of  the  Chief 
Executive  of  the  organization  whether  or  not  that  case 
ought  to  be  appealed  or  whether  it  should  not.  And  in  the 
majority  of  discipline  cases  which  you  refer  to,  I  think  it 
is  a  fair  inference,  if  the  Chief  Executive  Officer  had  been 
able  to  develop  that  method,  probably  a  large  number  of 
those  discipline  cases  would  not  have  gone  to  the  Board. 
That  offers  one  line  of  thought  as  a  method  of  limiting  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  National  Board,  if  one  should  be  estab- 
lished. There  may  be  other  methods.  One  other  method 
might  be  to  write  it  into  the  agreement,  defining  the  char- 
acter of  cases  which  could  come  to  the  National  Board,  and 
excluding  certain  classes  of  cases  which  should  not.  That 
presents  some  difficulty  which  is  very  obvious.  Whether  it 
could  be  done  or  not,  I  am  not  prepared  to  say.  That  is  as 
far  as  my  own  mind  has  gone  into  the  subject,  Mr.  Manion, 
but  it  is  an  interesting  matter  for  further  consideration. 

29 


MR.  SHEPPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  quite  confident 
if  you  gentlemen  can  see  your  own  way  clear  to  meet  our 
desires  that  a  National  Board  be  created,  I  feel  very  sure 
that  we  can  agree  upon  the  details  and  methods.  I  am  quite 
sure  that  we  can  arrange  a  workable  agreement  on  that 
proposition. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Maher,  have  you  anything  to 
say? 

MR.  MAKER  :    I  have  nothing  to  add. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:    Mr.  Markham? 

MR.  MARKHAM  :    I  have  nothing  to  add. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:    Mr.  Gray? 

MR.  GRAY:    No. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :    Mr.  Loomis  ? 

MR.  LOOMIS  :    I  have  nothing  to  add. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:    Mr.  Hustis? 

MR.  HUSTIS:    Nothing. 

MR.  HOLDEN:  I  would  like  to  ask  one  more  question, 
1  feel  like  apologizing,  because  I  have  been  doing  most  of 
the  talking.  If  the  railroads  should  agree  with  you  gen- 
tlemen on  the  creation  of  National  Boards  of  Adjustment, 
what  is  your  attitude  as  to  Local  Boards  of  Adjustment  on 
individual  railroads? 

MR.  SHEPPARD  :  We  have  them  now,  Mr.  Holden.  All 
matters  would  go  through  the  same  machinery.  We  have 
general  committees  on  every  railroad.  A  grievance  would, 
of  course,  have  to  originate  locally;  then  it  would  be  re- 
ferred to  the  General  Committee,  and  would  have  to  go 
through  all  of  that  machinery. 

MR.  HOLDEN:  While  that  is  practically  so,  that  was 
hardly  contemplated  by  this  act,  Section  302.  As  I  under- 
stand that,  it  would  mean,  if  applied  to  the  individual  rail- 
road, it  would  be  a  Local  Board  of  Adjustment  made  up  of 
an  evenly  balanced  number  of  men  representing  the  rail- 
road and  employees. 

MR.  JEWELL  :  The  obstacles  that  are  there,  Mr.  Chair- 
man and  Mr.  Holden,  as  I  grasp  the  situation,  are  these: 

30 


The  Local  or  Systems  Boards  of  Adjustment,  as  you  might 
term  them,  would  necessarily  be  made  up  of  the  same  of- 
ficials and  the  same  representatives  of  the  system  would 
handle  all  grievances  prior  to  its  reference  to  the  Local 
Board  of  Adjustment.  Therefore,  there  could  not  be  any 
progress  made  through  that  form  of  machinery.  We  have 
already,  as  suggested  by  Mr.  Sheppard,  a  committee  com- 
posed of  the  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Employees  and  the 
railroad  officials,  who  are  designated,  and  who  have  author- 
ity to  handle  grievances  and  dispose  of  them.  Therefore,  it 
would  simply  be  a  duplication  of  machinery,  which  might 
tend  to  delay  action  to  that  extent  and  it  would  be  an  ad- 
ded expense  to  the  organizations. 

MR.  SHEPPARD:  I  have  seen  the  Local  Boards  tried, 
and  this  is  what  I  have  noticed  developed :  I  have  seen,  for 
instance,  taking  a  group  of  officers  on  one  side  and  a  group 
of  committeemen  on  the  other.  I  have  seen,  for  instance, 
the  road  foreman,  and  I  have  seen  his  engineer,  disciplined 
by  the  representatives  of  the  trainmaster,  and  the  superin- 
tendent of  maintenance  of  way,  if  you  please,  and  I  have 
seen  retaliation  crop  up.  While  I  have  not  raised  any  chil- 
dren, it  seems  to  be  an  inherent  weakness  on  the  part  of  the 
average  man  to  see  somebody  else's  baby  spanked.  On  the 
other  side,  here  is  a  representative  of  a  labor  group,  all 
supposed  to  work  in  harmony,  and  the  first  thing  you  know, 
in  their  desire  to  do  what  is  fair,  they  will  punish  a  fellow 
out  of  their  own  group,  or  to  get  back  at  him,  will  punish 
the  other  fellow;  thus  the  railroad's  morale  and  the  morale 
of  the  service  suffers, — in  fact,  everybody  suffers  regard- 
less of  how  it  comes  about.  In  my  practical  experience,  I 
have  seen  that.  I  think  we  can  keep  away  from  it.  In  the 
first  place,  we  don't  want  to  go  to  outside  agencies  to  set- 
tle our  troubles,  but  we  do  want  to  get  it  away  from  local 
prejudice  or  passion  or  local  ambitions,  if  you  please. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  Mr.  Jewell,  I  would  like  to  have  you 
finish  this  discussion,  and  have  it  concluded  with  a  per- 
fectly frank  statement  of  what  is  the  practical  objection  to 
the  System  Board  of  Adjustment  going  directly  to  the 
Labor  Board. 

31 


MR.  JEWELL:  Well,  as  to  the  System  Board  of  Adjust- 
ment, first,  our  objection  is  that  it  is  simply  a  duplication  of 
the  present  machinery  now  available,  and  to  the  extent  that 
it  is  a  duplication,  it  would  not  accomplish  any  good  pur- 
pose. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :     That  is  an  assumption  on  your  part? 

MR.  JEWELL:  No,  it  is  based  upon  what  we  have  ex- 
perienced. We  have  a  General  Chairman  of  these  respec- 
tive classes  on  these  railroads,  and  there  are  railroad  offi- 
cials designated,  authorized  to  meet  those  Chairmen  or  rep- 
resentatives, and  adjust  their  grievances  by  conference,  in 
compliance  with  the  provisions  of  the  respective  agree- 
ments governing  conditions  of  employment.  Our  thought 
is,  that  any  Systems  Board  of  Adjustment  to  be  created, 
must  necessarily  be  composed  of  those  same  gentlemen  who 
have  already  conferred  on  those  grievances,  so  that  there 
would  not  be  any  assistance  given  or  progress  made  in  the 
adjustment  of  grievances  by  having  the  same  men  who  had 
already  previously  disagreed,  come  into  a  room,  sit 
around  a  table,  on  a  Board  similar  to  that  suggested,  and 
try  to  adjust  the  difficulties.  Even  though  there  be  added 
authority,  I  cannot  see  that  there  would  be  any  progress 
made. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  If  that  feature  were  eliminated  that 
you  speak  of,  would  the  Systems  Board  of  Adjustment  be 
satisfactory? 

MR.  JEWELL:  We  can  see  no  conditions  under  which 
the  Systems  Board  can  be  helpful  at  all.  On  the  other  hand, 
we  see  many  reasons  why  the  Systems  Board  won't  make 
for  industrial  peace. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  The  only  definite  statement  I  heard 
you  make  is  that  the  Systems  Board  is  necessarily  com- 
posed of  the  same  officers  who  have  already  judged  the  case. 
That  seems  to  be  your  only  objection. 

MR.  JEWELL  :  It  would  not  of  necessity  be  composed  of 
the  same  officers  of  the  railroad,  but  it  most  assuredly,  so 
far  as  the  organizations  are  concerned,  would  be  composed 
of  the  same  representatives.  So  far  as  I  can  see  at  the 
present  moment,  we  would  not  be  able  to  select  other  men 
delegated  to  handle  matters  of  that  character. 

32 


Then,  in  addition  to  that,  our  objection  to  the  Systems 
Board  or  any  other  form  of  Board  other  than  one  of  na- 
tional scope  is  that  it  will  make  for  disruption  of  our  na- 
tional standardization  which  we  have  attained,  and  which 
we  hope  to  further  perfect.  We  cannot  maintain  uniform- 
ity of  conditions  of  employment  or  uniformity  of  de- 
cisions, nor  application  of  them,  except  through  one  Board, 
one  National  Board,  as  we  see  it.  These  classes  of  em- 
ployees who  have  made  that  progress  in  the  past,  and  all  of 
them  have  made  it,  to  a  greater  or  lesser  extent,  and  judg- 
ing the  future  by  the  past,  they  will  continue  to  urge  stand- 
ardization and  uniformity  of  conditions  of  employment, 
rates  of  pay,  and  so  forth,  and  if  they  do,  they  will  un- 
doubtedly secure  further  concessions,  and  a  creation  of  any 
form  of  Adjustment  Board  other  than  that  of  one  of 
national  scope  will  make  for  a  tearing  down  of  those  con- 
ditions rather  than  extending  them. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Then  your  second  objection  is  that 
the  Systems  Board  of  Adjustment  on  several  systems,  would 
bring  about  lack  of  uniformity? 

MR.  JEWELL:    Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  Therefore  you  think  that  standardi- 
zation and  uniformity  are  desirable  things? 

MR.  JEWELL  :  They  are  not  only  desirable,  in  our  opin- 
ion, but  they  are  absolutely  necessary  to  make  for  the 
proper  operation  of  the  railroads.  The  employees  are  and 
have  been  for  years  urging  those  things,  urging  uniform- 
ity, and  as  I  say,  we  have  secured  it  to  a  greater  or  lesser 
extent.  We  expect  to  continue  our  efforts  towards  the  cre- 
ation of  uniformity  of  conditions  of  employment,  rates  of 
pay,  and  so  forth. 

MR.  BESLER:  If  that  should  be  maintained  and  rates 
made  satisfactory,  would  not  the  Local  Board  of  Adjust- 
ment see  that  that  situation  were  punctiliously  performed 
and  functioning  satisfactorily? 

MR.  JEWELL:  I  cannot  see  where  a  Local  Board  of 
Adjustment  could  be  helpful.  We  believe  that  the  machin- 

33 


ery  now  in  existence,  that  is  the  General  Chairman  or  Local 
Committee  at  the  point,  and  the  General  Chairman  on  the 
roads,  together  with  railroad  officials,  can  and  should  ad- 
just the  grievances  that  might  arise  on  the  railroad  and 
with  few  exceptions,  should  there  be  any  necessity  for  a  dis- 
ciplinary matter  to  go  to  these  National  Boards,  and  just 
to  the  extent  as  we  enter  the  problem  with  a  determinati  3n 
to  co-operate  and  deal,  as  you  suggest,  squarely  with  both 
parties,  can  we  reduce  or  increase  the  number  of  griev- 
ances going  to  those  Boards. 

MR.  BESLER:  The  fact  would  be,  that  we  would  have 
a  Board  of  Adjustment  which  would  not  be  called  a  Board 
of  Adjustment,  whose  functions  would  be  to  carry  out  de- 
cisions on  grievances  punctiliously  to  both  sides. 

MR.  SHEPPARD  :  Those  who  advocate  the  Local  Boards, 
as  I  get  their  viewpoint,  I  take  it  that  this  question  of  disci- 
pline would  influence  them  more  in  wanting  Local  Boards 
than  anything  else;  am  I  correct  in  that  assumption? 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  I  take  it  that  is  one  of  the  important 
factors,  Mr.  Sheppard. 

MR.  SHEPPARD:  Let  me  say  to  you  gentlemen,  that  I 
would  rather  take  my  chances  before  the  average  General 
Manager  or  higher  railroad  official  than  I  would  before  the 
Board,  although  I  concede  that  half  of  the  Board  would  be 
composed  of  my  own  colleagues.  That  may  sound  like 
heresy  to  my  people,  but  that  is  my  experience. 

MR.  RYAN:  It  seems  to  me  that  it  is  just  as  necessary 
to  have  a  National  Board  as  provided  in  the  Transportation 
Act  of  1920, — and  that  is  another  reason  which  justifies  us 
in  insisting  upon  a  National  Board, — the  Transportation 
Act  and  the  authority  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commis- 
sion does  not  just  apply  to  one  road  in  any  one  section 
of  the  country ;  but  it  applies  alike  to  all  sections.  It  is  our 
understanding  that  all  railroads  are  to  be  treated  alike  by 
the  Transportation  Act  of  1920.  Then  why  should  we  be 
willing  to  have  Local  Boards  set  up  and  tear  down  the  stand- 
ardization that  our  organizations  have  builded  for  many 
years?  And  that  is  just  exactly  what  it  would  do.  It  couk' 

34 


not  do  anything  else.  I  agree  that  the  proper  operations 
and  the  best  interests  of  the  railroads  of  this  country  de- 
mand that  the  Transportation  Act  should  apply  to  all  rail- 
roads. I  think  it  is  to  their  advantage,  and  I  also  see  that 
it  is  to  our  advantage  to  have  a  National  Board  for  the 
same  reason.  The  Transportation  Act  covers  all  the  rail- 
roads alike. 

MR.  JEWELL:  By  the  same  token  that  you  ask  us  to 
state  our  objections  to  the  Local  Board,  may  I  ask  you  gen- 
tlemen why  you  favor  Boards  of  Adjustment  other  than 
those  of  national  scope,  so  that  we  might  properly  under- 
stand your  position? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I  think  Mr.  Cuyler,  in  his  reply  to 
you,  clearly  states  the  position  of  the  railroads  on  that. 

MR.  JEWELL:  There  are  no  other  reasons  that  you 
could  give? 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  I  think  that  he  has  covered  it  very 
fully. 

MR.  JEWELL  :  We  have  discussed  that,  and  have  given 
veiy  careful  consideration  to  everything  that  was  said 
there  by  the  members  of  our  committee. 

MR.  HEBERLING:  I  want  to  ask  a  question.  I  just 
want  to  give  my  viewpoint.  As  I  understand  the  machinery 
established  by  all  these  organizations,  they  have  their  local 
committees  and  they  have  their  general  committees,  and  the 
general  chairman  would  carry  his  grievance  clear  to  the 
general  manager  to  have  it  adjusted.  Let  us  take  a  disci- 
pline case.  This  is  what  is  in  my  mind :  I  just  wonder  if 
any  Board  on  a  system,  created  by  local  officials,  would  ever 
reverse  a  decision  of  a  general  manager  of  the  railroad 
that  comes  before  it.  I  have  that  in  mind.  I  am  just  won- 
dering if  that  would  ever  happen.  I  leave  that  with  you. 
As  I  know  local  officails  and  officials  of  railroads  generally, 
and  as  I  see  men  generally,  I  just  wonder  where  we  would 
get  off  at  on  System  Boards  of  Adjustment,  made  up  of 
minor  officials  who  might  be  called  on  to  handle  the  case 
that  a  general  manager  has  already  been  called  upon  to 
pass,  in  a  matter  of  discipline?  You  understand,  we  carry 
our  cases  now  to  the  general  manager,  and  if  adjusted, 

35 


there  is  no  need  of  further  appeal.  Now,  suppose  we  ap- 
peal to  an  Adjustment  Board  on  a  system  composed  of 
officials  of  minor  degree  than  that  of  the  general  manager, 
«•  can  any  one  reasonably  expect  that  committee  to  reverse 
the  decision  of  the  higher  official,  in  the  nature  of  things? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  are  assuming  the  construction 
of  the  Board  that  might  not  exist,  just  as  Mr.  Jewell  as- 
sumed a  construction  of  the  Board  ? 

MR.  JEWELL:  Just  to  that  extent,  General  Atterbury, 
we  may  be  in  the  dark  as  to  just  what  you  had  in  mind  and 
that  is,  briefly  what  I  had  in  mind  when  I  asked  that  you 
state  fully  with  reference  to  the  executives  and  the  nature 
of  these  System  Boards.  We  have  tried  to  look  at  the  matter 
fairly  and  squarely,  and  as  we  can  see  it,  the  only  possible 
way  they  can  be  created  in  their  makeup,  and  Mr.  Heberling 
has  stated  our  general  assumptions  along  those  lines,  they 
must  necessarily  be  made  up  of  officials  subordinate  in  posi- 
tion to  officials  who  have  already  passed  on  the  question,  and 
these  subordinate  officials  that  we  would  have  to  go  to  and 
get  a  settlement  from, — when  the  employee's  representa- 
tives were  prepared  to  support  the  position  taken  by  the  em- 
ployees in  appealing  their  case  to  the  Board,  and  if  they 
were  justified,  and  justice  were  on  their  side,  then  surely  the 
question  we  must  ask  is,  can  we  expect  subordinate  railroad 
officials  to  reverse  a  decision  that  they  themselves  have 
made,  and  in  addition  to  that  have  to  reverse  a  decision 
rendered  by  their  superior  official  ? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I  concede  that  it  is  quite  possible, 
Mr.  Jewell,  for  the  employees  and  the  officers  themselves 
to  sit  down  and  discuss  to  a  conclusion  the  makeup  of  a 
satisfactory  Board  of  Adjustment  to  both. 

MR.  BESLER  :  May  I  suggest  this  hypothetical  illustra- 
tion? In  carrying  a  grievance  to  the  Director  General  of 
railroads,  who  was  general  manager  of  all  railroads,  had 
the  Director  General  passed  upon  a  case,  Mr.  Heberling, 
would  this  National  Board  of  Adjustment  or  Board  No.  1, 
2  or  3,  would  they  have  reversed  the  Director  General  ?  It 
did  not  reach  that  point,  but  the  case  came  up  to  his  repre- 

36 


sentatives  on  Boards  1,  2  or  3,  and  when  they  passed  upon 
it,  he  placed  his  seal  of  approval  on  whatever  that  Board 
found.  Might  not  a  similar  illustration  apply  in  the  case 
of  railroads?  Suppose  the  Board  of  Adjustment  takes  a 
case,  before  the  general  manager  has  passed  finally  upon 
it  and  decides  that  whatever  that  Board  finds,  the  general 
manager  says  has  my  approval, — "whatever  the  Board  de- 
cides has  my  approval." 

MR.  SHEPPARD  :  You  come  back  to  my  statement,  that 
I  would  rather  leave  it  to  the  general  manager  than  I 
would  to  the  Board  in  those  cases,  and  you  know  that  under 
General  Order  No.  13  the  case  doesn't  go  to  the  Director 
General,  except  that  he  could  reverse  them.  He  never  got 
in  the  case  when  Board  No.  1  settled  a  case. 

MR.  SHEA  :  The  decision  of  the  Board  is  final.  The 
Director  General  has  no  authority  under  the  order  to  set 
aside  or  modify  decisions  of  the  Board  of  Adjustments. 

MR.  SHEPPARD  :  If  you  remember,  Mr.  Shea,  also  no- 
tice was  served  on  the  Board  that  if  they  divided  on  parti- 
san lines  about  three  times,  he  would  have  a  new  Board. 
He  had  a  moral  influence  there  all  the  time.  He  said,  "You 
might  divide  that  between  railroad  representatives  and 
labor  taking  sides,  I  will  not  object  to  that  at  all,  but  if  you 
divide  as  between  labor  and  railroad  managers,  a  few  times, 
why,  I  think  I  will  get  a  new  Board." 

MR.  SHEA:  The  point  I  brought  out  is,  that  the  de- 
cision of  that  Board  was  final  and  the  Director  General 
had  no  authority  to  set  it  aside. 

MR.  BESLER:  If  there  were  a  Local  Board  of  Adjust- 
ment, so  that  the  matter  did  not  reach  the  general  manager, 
and  the  general  manager  permitted  them  to  determine  a 
matter  reached  by  the  Local  Board  of  employees  of  their 
duly  elected  four  or  six,  as  against  his  four  or  six,  then 
he  might  vote  and  they  arrived  at  a  majority  decision,  does 
that  answer  such  a  situation? 

MR.  SHEPPARD  :  Our  men  would  not  be  satisfied  unless 
they  could  go  to  the  general  manager. 

37 


MR.  BESLER:  Why  not,  if  they  agreed  that  the  de- 
cision might  be  in  their  favor? 

MR.  SHEPPARD:  They  don't  want  to  agree  to  any- 
thing that  would  prevent  them  going  to  the  general  man- 
ager. 

MR.  MANION  :  I  gathered  from  what  you  said  that  the 
Board  would  be  composed  of  three  or  four  representatives 
from  each  side. 

MR.  BESLER:    Yes. 

MR.  MANION:  There  are  sixteen  organizations.  If 
you  established  a  Board  composed  of  four  representatives 
on  each  side,  there  may  be  a  shopman,  a  trainman,  an  engi- 
neer and  track  man  on  that  Board  representing  the  em- 
ployees, and  the  case  may  come  from  a  class  that  I  repre- 
sent, the  telegraph  operators — the  station  agents  and  fire- 
men that  come  before  that  Board  of  men,  those  various 
classes  as  well  as  myself  would  hardly  feel  that  they  would 
be  competent  to  pass  upon  cases  that  they  are  not  suffi- 
ciently familiar  with.  They  are  not  familiar  with  our 
duties  to  pass  an  intelligent  decision  upon  our  class  of 
work. 

MR.  BESLER:  I  agree  with  you  entirely.  I  would  not 
have  but  four  men,  I  would  have  three  groups  with  their 
annually  elected  representatives  and  each  group  would 
meet  with  this  Board  just  as  the  National  Board  existing 
in  Washington,  having  the  three  Boards  and  three  groups 
to  meet  with. 

MR.  JEWELL:  That  means  sixteen  employees'  repre- 
sentatives, and  sixteen  railroads  upon  each  individual  rail- 
road Board  in  this  country. 

MR.  BESLER:    No. 

MR.  JEWELL  :     That  is  what  it  virtually  means. 

MR.  BESLER:     How  many  have  you  in  Washington? 

MR.  JEWELL  :  Four  on  Board  1 ;  four  on  the  Govern- 
ment Board;  four  representing  the  men;  we  have  six  on 
Board  No.  2 

38 


MR.  BESLER:  There  is  no  reason  why  that  could  not 
be  done. 

MR.  JEWELL  :     And  four  on  Board  No.  3. 

MR.  BESLER:     No  reason  why  that  could  not  be  done. 

MR.  JEWELL:    And  with  a  desire  to  place  one  on 

Board  No.  1  and  one  on  Board  3,  which  would  be  a  very 
expensive  proposition,  and  would  not  make  for  the  main- 
tenance of  a  consistent  policy  of  these  organizations,  but 
would  make  rather  for  disruption,  retarding  and  interfer- 
ence of  it. 

MR.  BESLER:  I  cannot  see  why  it  would  work  that 
way. 

MR.  JEWELL:  There  is  a  possibility  that  you  would 
have  different  decisions  rendered  by  different  Boards  of 
Adjustment  involving  the  application  of  possibly  the  same 
rule  of  employment. 

MR.  BESLER:  If  it  is  satisfactory  to  the  men  upon 
that  road,  isn't  that  what  you  are  seeking? 

MR.  JEWELL:  We  are  seeking  a  uniform  application 
of  uniform  conditions. 

MR.  BESLER  :  Even  if  it  be  unsatisfactory  to  the  men 
of  that  road? 

MR.  JEWELL:  Not  necessarily  in  the  way  you  put  it, 
"unsatisfactory  to  the  men  of  that  road."  Their  represen- 
tatives will  adjust  differences  by  conference  with  the  rail- 
road officials. 

MR.  BESLER  :     I  cannot  quite  follow  you. 

MR.  SHEPPARD:  Mr.  Besler,  we  have  all  experienced, 
every  one  of  us  personally,  and  as  representatives  of  other 
interests,  times  when  we  have  to  submerge  what  we  think 
is  desirable,  to  the  common  good.  Uniformity  for  every- 
body rather  than  discrimination;  the  greatest  good  to  the 
greatest  number  rather  than  special  consideration  to  a 
special  group. 

39 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Now,  Mr.  Jewell,  unless  there  is 
something  further  to  be  said,  we  will  make  our  report  to 
the  Association  of  Executives,  through  Mr.  Cuyler,  at  an 
early  date,  and  you  will  either  hear  further  from  him,  or 
from  us  through  Mr.  Binkerd. 

MR.  JEWELL  :  You  may  address  me,  until  further  no- 
tice, at  1505  American  Bond  &  Mortgage  Building,  Chicago, 
Illinois.  If  I  change  those  headquarters,  I  will  notify  you. 
I  wish  to  say  that  I  appreciate  very  much  this  conference. 

MR.  HUSTIS:  Before  we  adjourn,  I  would  like  to 
ask:  As  I  understand  it,  you  are  opposed  to  any  Local 
Boards  of  Adjustment  that  would  interfere  with  uniformity 
of  rules  and  working  conditions,  but  outside  of  that,  there 
is  no  objection  to  the  settlement  of  any  questions  that  can 
be  settled  locally ;  am  I  correct  in  that,  Mr.  Jewell  ? 

MR.  JEWELL:  I  don't  know  whether  we  have  made 
ourselves  plain.  We  don't  want  to  be  misunderstood  with 
reference  to  this  question  of  Boards  of  Adjustment.  We 
are  opposed  to  any  form  of  Boards  of  Adjustment  other 
than  those  which  will  have  national  scope.  We  want  settle- 
ments of  differences  between  the  employer  and  employee 
by  conference  through  the  authorized  representatives  of 
both  parties,  under  the  same  program,  under  the  same  pro- 
cedure as  are  now  in  existence  and  have  been  during  Gov- 
ernment control,  under  a  National  Board  of  Adjustment, 
and  as  existing  with  reference  to  conferences  prior  to  and 
since  Government  control. 

MR.  HUSTIS:  And  your  fear  of  Local  Boards  of  Ad- 
justment is  that  they  may  destroy  uniformity? 

MR.  JEWELL:  In  addition  to  that,  they  would  not 
make  for  the  situation  we  have  in  mind,  but  on  the  con- 
trary, they  would  destroy  the  peaceful  conditions  on  rail- 
roads which  we  are  all  looking  for. 

MR.  HUSTIS  :  Yes,  that  is  what  we  are  all  looking  for, 
of  course. 

MR.  JEWELL:     On  the  other  hand,  we  are  convinced 

40 


that  it  would  make  for  anything  but  peace.  To  that  ex- 
tent it  would  be  detrimental  not  only  to  us,  but  to  the  rail- 
roads and  the  public  as  well. 

MR.  YOUNG:  May  I  suggest  that  you  answer  Mr. 
Hustis,  that  if  the  National  Board  of  Adjustment  were 
established  now,  would  you  have  any  objection  to  a  Local 
Board  of  Adjustment  handling  the  local  cases  of  the  B.  &  M. 
Railroad,  for  instance? 

MR.  JEWELL:  We  cannot  conceive  of  any  necessity 
for  the  Local  Boards  of  Adjustment. 

MR.  YOUNG  :  Suppose  the  railroads  and  the  men  want 
to  get  together  to  that  end,  would  there  be  any  objection 
on  the  part  of  your  organization  to  their  doing  so  ? 

MR.  JEWELL  :  The  policy  of  the  organization  adopted 
by  the  rank  and  file  is  in  opposition  to  anything  but  a 
National  Board.  That  is  the  policy  that  has  been  passed  to 
us  by  the  rank  and  file  of  the  organization. 

MR.  SHEPPARD  :  Mr.  Young,  all  organizations  provide 
for  Local  and  General  Boards  of  Adjustment.  We  are  not 
talking  about  minimizing  that  at  all. 

MR.  YOUNG  :  That  is  my  understanding.  I  cannot  get 
it  clear.  For  instance,  the  Boston  and  Maine  Railroad  has 
a  dispute,  and  that  road  wants  to  settle  its  own  case  on  its 
own  road,  if  it  can;  there  is  no  objection  to  that,  is  there? 

MR.  HOLDEN  :  Gentlemen,  if  you  don't  have  Local 
Boards  of  Adjustment,  how  are  you  going  to  curb  the  ap- 
pealing of  these  insignificant  minor  cases,  which  you  agree 
with  us,  ought  not  to  go  to  any  National  Board?  That  is, 
as  I  see  it,  going  to  be  the  case.  I  have  a  right  to  assume, 
under  Order  No.  13,  all  these  files  passing  through  the  office 
of  the  Chief  Executive  of  the  particular  organization  in- 
volved, and  I  don't  believe  that  the  executive  officers  of 
those  organizations  have  the  time  to  examine  them, — every 
one  of  those  files,  and  in  a  particular  sense,  we  got  the  im- 
pression during  the  Federal  control  that  the  individual 
employee,  however  minor  his  case  was,  could  and  did  appeal 

41 


it  to  Washington.  That  was  a  matter  of  local  decision, 
but  there  wasn't  any  curbing  or  any  checking  by  the  chief 
officers  of  his  organization  as  to  whether  the  appeal  should 
£0  or  not.  The  language  was  written  in  there  which  pro- 
vided for  the  0.  K.  of  the  chief  officers,  that  that  appeal 
could  properly  go,  but  a  great  many  of  the  cases  that  went 
down  there  we  would  not  want  to  charge  you  gentlemen 
with  having  approved  the  appeal. 

I  think  we  both  feel  that  there  ought  to  be  some  curb 
on  the  hasty  and  ill-advised  appeal  by  both  the  railroads 
and  the  men  relating  to  these  minor  matters, — small  cases 
which  ought  not  to  be  dignified  by  a  national  handling; 
how  can  you  stop  it? 

MR.  SHEPPARD  :  Let  us  have  a  clearing  house  or  com- 
mittee made  up  of  this  body  today,  that  is  a  sort  of  sketchy 
idea,  not  fully  planned  out. 

MR.  YOUNG:  When  the  Boards  were  first  established 
under  Order  13,  all  those  cases  were  to  go  through  the 
Division  of  Labor ;  on  account  of  the  accumulation  of  busi- 
ness and  work  in  the  Division  of  Labor,  those  cases  were 
allowed  to  go  through  without  being  examined  at  first. 

MR.  HOLDEN:  I  knew  that,  but  I  did  not  want  to 
mention  it. 

MR.  YOUNG:  Later  on,  we  established  between  the 
Division  of  Labor  a  sort  of  clearing  house,  composed  on 
one  side  by  a  representative  of  labor,  and  upon  the  other 
side  a  managerial  representative,  and  these  cases  were 
passed  then  through  the  hands  of  these  two  men,  and  those 
properly  belonging  to  various  Boards  were  given  to  the 
Boards,  and  those  which  were  not,  were  sent  back  to  the 
railroads  as  not  being  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Boards, 
and  not  proper  questions  to  come  before  them.  This  be- 
came known  largely  as  "Board  No.  4."  It  is  a  very  active 
Board,  and  is  handling  a  great  many  cases  no^  in  Wash- 
ington. In  all  probability,  something  of  that  kind  would 
have  to  be  established  here  so  as  to  winnow  out  these  cases. 
You  will  find  there  are  no  such  cases  coming  to  those 

42 


Boards  that  are  not  properly  coming  before  them.     Am  I 
not  correct? 

MR.  JEWELL  :  Yes,  that  is  correct,  but  we  could  assist 
along  that  line  with  the  suggestion  that  Mr.  Sheppard 
made  by  assigning  some  specially  chosen  organization  and 
giving  it  particular  responsibilities  or  duties  of  approving 
or  declining  to  approve  every  single  grievance  coming  in, 
which  is  proposed  to  go  to  these  Boards.  In  our  depart- 
ment, we  started  to  do  that.  We  soon  found  ourselves 
snowed  under  by  reason  of  inability  to  secure  a  man  who 
had  the  authority  to  do  that  class  of  work,  but  we  have 
tried  to  meet  that  situation  by  the  selection  of  a  man  and 
the  changing  of  our  rules  in  such  a  manner,  under  proper 
authority  of  organization.  We  think  those  things  are  mat- 
ters of  detail  that  we  can  work  out,  and  we  must  benefit 
by  the  experience  we  had  in  the  past,  and  try  to  eliminate 
every  unnecessary  case  of  submission  to  the  Board.  Mr. 
Young  suggests  something  which  I  have  been  thinking  a 
good  deal  about.  That  is,  the  creation  of  some  sort  of 
clearing  house  to  take  the  place  of  what  he  terms  "Board 
No.  4,"  one  man  from  the  management,  one  man  from 
labor,  which  would  act  as  a  clearing  house  between  the 
railroads  and  the  organizations  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
Boards  on  the  other.  Something  of  that  kind  must  neces- 
sarily be  worked  out,  it  seems  to  me.  But  that  again 
would  be  merely  a  detail  which  I  believe  these  organiza- 
tions are  prepared  to  work  out  and  meet  in  a  practical 
way.  It  is  a  practical  thing,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  the 
functioning  of  that  so-called  Board  No.  4  was  not  only 
very  helpful,  but  very  necessary. 

MR.  DOAK:  Gentlemen,  I  just  want  to  give  you  the 
benefit  of  a  little  bit  of  experience  that  I  had  as  a  member 
of  one  of  these  Boards.  I  would  like  to  say  that  I  am  not 
an  applicant  for  a  position  on  a  Board,  if  it  is  created. 
My  observation  and  experience  on  the  Board  have  con- 
vinced me  that  the  reason  that  Board  No.  1  had  so  many 
cases  was  because  I  know  that  these  cases  were  not  prop- 
erly scrutinized  by  the  chief  executives.  They  did  not 

43 


have  an  opportunity  to  do  so.  On  the  other  hand,  we 
found  a  great  number  of  cases  of  passing  the  buck  on  both 
sides.  I  would  be  in  a  position  to  call  a  few  names,  if 
necessary,  along  that  line.  Some  of  these  gentlemen  did 
not  try  to  settle  these  things,  but  I  don't  think  any  one 
has  a  thought  of  going  into  this  new  proposition  and  letting 
those  conditions  continue.  The  Board  that  I  was  on  handled 
probably  2,100  cases.  Some  of  them  were  so  insignificant 
that  they  should  not  have  ever  been  considered.  I  do  think 
if  we  organize  a  Board  it  should  be  a  National  Board,  and 
I  think,  from  my  observation,  the  only  solution  is  a  Na- 
tional Board  and  an  organization  so  that  there  should  be 
some  form  of  clearing  house  to  stop  those  abuses.  I  think 
it  should  be  put  up  to  the  management  of  the  respective 
lines  to  use  every  reasonable  effort  to  settle  these  things  and 
close  them  out. 

It  is  very  true  that  when  we  went  on  the  Board,  some 
of  us  had  rather  positive  instructions  as  to  what  would  be 
done  with  us  if  we  didn't  do  thus  and  so.  I  don't  know 
what  effect  it  had  on  us,  but  we  were  able  to  agree  on  every 
case  that  came  before  the  Board,  but  we  only  did  it  by 
meeting  across  the  Board.  We  never  had  any  private  con- 
ferences nor  caucuses.  I  don't  believe  that  the  managers 
ever  discussed  a  case  outside  of  the  Board,  and  I  am  quite 
sure  that  our  group  did  not.  Everything  was  said  across 
the  table.  We  got  a  lot  of  cussing,  but  that  is  what  is 
really  expected.  I  do  think  that  if  these  Boards  are  cre- 
ated, they  should  be  created  along  the  lines  that  these  were. 
That  is  my  judgment,  that  we  should  have  some  form  of 
clearing  house  and  each  side  should  say  to  the  men  under 
them,  "Now,  you  don't  pass  any  more  bucks.  We  are 
going  to  stop  you.  You  make  an  honest  effort  to  settle 
these  cases,"  and  you  will  be  surprised,  if  that  is  carried 
out,  to  find  the  number  of  cases  that  would  be  cut  off  and 
would  not  go  to  the  Board. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Doak,  may  I  ask  you  a  ques- 
tion? Now,  please  don't  misunderstand  me,  or  think  that 
I  am  going  to  try  to  trip  you,  because  that  is  the  last  thing 

44 


in  my  mind.    Are  you  or  are  you  not  opposed  to  Local 
Boards  of  Adjustment? 

MR.  DOAK:  Really,  I  am  opposed  to  it,  General,  be- 
cause I  don't  think  it  would  do  any  good,  for  this  reason 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  No,  I  don't  mean  Local  Board,  going 
directly  to  the  Labor  Board,  but  I  mean  a  Local  Board 
settling  a  matter  if  they  can  settle  it,  without  going  to  the 
National  Board  of  Adjustment. 

MR.  DOAK:  I  will  give  you  my  reason  for  be- 
lieving that  that  won't  work.  If  you  are  going  to  have  a 
Board  on  the  system,  you  would  certainly  have  officers  of 
some  importance  on  that  Board.  On  the  other  hand,  you 
are  going  to  have  employees  of  some  importance  on  the 
Board.  Under  our  present  system,  a  man  must  take  his 
case  to  his  local  and  then  it  must  be  handled  by  his  Local 
Committee,  consisting  of  three  men  with  the  local  officials 
up  to  and  including  the  superintendent,  and  then  if  he 
wants  to  appeal,  if  it  is  not  satisfactory,  he  goes  to  the 
general  superintendent  and  must  be  appealed  to  the  highest 
officer  of  the  railroad. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  right,  then  you  get  it  to  the 
General  Manager  and  the  General  Committee,  which  is  en- 
tirely within  their  province,  to  settle  any  question  that  may 
come  to  them  by  agreement. 

MR.  DOAK  :    Absolutely. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Wait  now,  I  am  just  trying  to  con- 
vince myself  of  something.  Then  they  can  decide  almost 
any  question  as  between  themselves,  that  is  decided  in  a 
mutually  satisfactory  way.  May  they  not  then,  under  exist- 
ing conditions,  establish  non-uniform  conditions  or  deci- 
sions quite  as  easily  as  if  th4  System  Board  were  in 
existence  ? 

MR.  DOAK  :    That  is  true. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  Mr.  Jewell  is  thoroughly  consistent, 
but  what  I  don't  understand  is,  is  the  inconsistency  of  any- 
body who  advocates  the  settlement  of  all  questions  of  settle- 

IS 


ment  of  as  many  questions  as  he  can,  on  your  own  rail- 
roads, among  your  own  employees.  Mr.  Jewell  is  consistent 
in  that  he  wants  all  questions  settled  by  a  National  Board 
pf  Adjustment,  because  that  means  uniformity. 

MR.  DOAK:  I  understand,  I  think,  Mr.  Jewell's  posi- 
tion, and  I  think  you  will  understand  my  position  if  you 
will  let  me  explain  a  little  further.  As  I  said  before,  an 
honest  effort  should  be  made,  we  should  insist  on  that,  to 
come  to  a  proper  understanding  of  these  things.  After 
you  go  to  the  highest  operating  officer  of  the  company,  a 
committee  makes  a  settlement,  and  the  man  has  a  right  to 
appeal  to  the  convention,  if  the  settlement  is  made  which 
had  a  tendency  to  destroy  uniformity  and  set  aside  the 
uniform  practices  of  the  country ;  by  the  terms  of  that  set- 
tlement, they  would  have  an  unquestioned  right,  either 
through  the  Board  of  Directors  of  our  organization  or  the 
convention  itself,  to  set  aside  that  decision ;  and  that  would 
not  be  possible  for  a  Local  Board  of  Adjustment  to  do. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  You  know  it  would  not  be  settled  to 
the  mutual  satisfaction  of  the  parties,  unless  it  was  better 
for  the  men. 

MR.  DOAK  :    Not  always. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :     I  mean  in  a  perfectly  natural  way. 

MR.  DOAK  :     Generally  speaking,  that  is  true. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Your  Board  of  Directors  would 
never  hear  of  that;  they  would  go  on  until  it  became  the 
established  custom  of  the  railroad  that  had  made  that  set- 
tlement, until  the  next  door  neighbor  that  ran  into  the 
same  terminal  had  something  of  that  sort,  because,  as  soon 
as  he  heard  of  it,  he  would  go  to  his  management  and  insist 
upon  it.  It  is  over  on  the  Squeedunk  now,  and  we  want  it 
on  the  Podunk, 

MR.  DOAK:  I  happen  to  be  a  member  of  the  Board 
of  Directors  of  our  organization,  and  I  know  in  a  great 
many  instances  that  those  things  happened — the  appeal  is 
taken. 

46 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Jewell  is  perfectly  consistent. 
Yet,  if  you  grant  Mr.  Sheppard's  position,  that  is,  a  settle- 
ment of  problems  in  the  old  way,  with  your  old  men, 
through  your  old  committees,  there  is  that  weakness  that 
Mr.  Jewell  properly  tries  to  prevent,  assuming  his  position 
is  right. 

MR.  SHEPPARD:  I  beg  your  pardon;  we  are  not  apart, 
for  this  reason 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :    That  is  what  I  was  going  to  say. 

MR.  SHEPPARD  :  I  see  what  the  General  has  in  mind. 
Usually  if  the  management  and  committee  agree  upon  some- 
thing outside  of  standard,  it  is  a  trading  proposition.  Now, 
the  temptation  to  do  that  is  general.  The  men  engaging  in 
it,  who  are  on  the  committee,  might  think  that  they  are 
profiting  by  that,  and  on  the  other  hand,  it  might  be  an 
honorable  transaction,  thinking  that  the  trade  was  advan- 
tageous to  all  parties  concerned,  when  as  a  matter  of  fact 
oftentimes  an  exchange  is  made  to  the  detriment,  if  not 
to  the  men  on  that  particular  road,  it  is  to  the  men  on  the 
adjoining  roads.  That  is  why  we  try  to  keep  a  check  in 
that  regard.  On  the  other  hand,  if  it  is  a  minor  propo- 
sition, with  no  principle  involved,  or  no  standard,  we  are 
perfectly  willing  for  them  to  do  those  things ;  but  as  a  gen- 
eral proposition,  we  don't  want  them  to  do  it.  I  have  a 
case  in  mind  on  one  railroad,  for  example.  It  involved  the 
short  turn-around  rule  for  passenger  service  conductors 
and  trainmen,  which  is  in  almost  universal  usage,  and  yet 
a  committee  composed  of  men  who  approved  of  something 
else  went  in  and  lost  an  important  feature  of  that  turn- 
around rule,  which  had  been  handed  down  to  us,  and  which 
had  been  in  general  use  and  in  vogue  since  1913,  and  we 
exchanged  it ;  in  spite  of  that  committee,  composed  of  pas- 
senger conductors,  who  thought  they  had  something  better 
to  the  passenger  class,  came  in  and  traded  it  away.  You 
can  see,  I  am  not  accusing  anybody  of  wrongdoing.  They 
thought  it  was  better  for  them.  But  those  kind  of  things, 
we  all  insist,  must  be  kept  a  little  bit  in  check,  because 
immediately  that  was  done,  an  appeal  cropped  up  through 

47 


the  organization.  Then  we  were  in  a  position  whereby  the 
railroad  management,  which  in  good  faith  agreed  to  that 
change,  was  called  upon  to  change  back  again.  We  want 
tp  keep  away  from  those  kind  of  things  as  much  as  we  can. 

MR.  JEWELL:  Mr.  Doak,  just  for  the  sake  of  the  rec- 
ord, I  want  to  ask  one  question:  I  got  your  statement, 
which  was  that  you  had  certain  instructions  from  the  Board 
of  Adjustment;  do  you  care  to  say  where  you  got  those 
instructions?  Some  one  might  assume  that  some  one  in 
the  organization  gave  you  instructions  when  you  were 
appointed. 

MR.  DOAK  :  Mr.  Sheppard  referred  to  them,  and  that 
is  the  reason  I  spoke  about  it. 

MR.  SHEPPARD  :  Injunctions  laid  on  us  on  the  part  of 
the  Director  General 

MR.  DOAK:  We  were  told  that  there  were  so  many 
cases  on  appeal,  and  where  we  were  reversed  a  certain  num- 
ber of  times  would  mean  that  we  were  to  be  removed  from 
the  Board.  My  president  told  me  when  I  was  appointed  on 
the  Board  that  I  was  answerable  only  to  my  own  conscience. 
Further  than  to  say  that  on  appeal  where  we  hung  up  so 
many  decisions, — I  don't  know  how  many  were  fixed, — 
and  the  Director  General  when  he  made  his  final  decision 
reversed  us,  it  was  time  to  make  a  change.  That  is  what 
I  understood  Mr.  Sheppard  referred  to.  That  is  the  reason 
I  referred  to  it.  But  so  far  as  telling  me  what  to  do, 
other  than  that,  I  had  no  instructions  whatsoever. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  And  now,  gentlemen,  we  will  take 
the  matters  that  have  come  up  at  this  meeting  under  con- 
sideration, and,  as  I  stated  before,  will  report  to  you  at 
the  address  which  Mr.  Jewell  gave  Mr.  Binkerd. 

Whereupon  the  conference  adjourned. 


48 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

TO—  ^      202  Main  Library 

LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

Renewals  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 

Books  may  be  Renewed  by  calling     642-3405. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


Wuyoj&jggg 


Hfc€r 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
FORM  NO.  DD6  BERKELEY,  CA  94720 

®s 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


coaiosaito 


•3499 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


